Browsing through texts in [Kibrik et al. 1977b; Mikailov 1967; Dirr 1908] suggests that the adjective mˈarči is the most common expression for 'all (omnis)', which can be used as both attributive and non-attributive, referring to human beings. Examples are numerous, e.g., "All youths like this girl" and so on [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 9, 11, 66, 67, 90], "All men have come", "you do say to all the people that..." [Mikailov 1967: 95, 156, 158]. Examples for non-attributive mˈarči 'all (omnis)' referring to human beings are also well attested, e.g., "I have killed them all" [Kibrik et al. 1977a 2: 173], "Everybody was happy, when she died" and so on [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 9, 10, 11, 21, 27, 46, 104, etc.].

A reasonable solution should be to treat expressions for 'omnis (human beings)' and 'omnis (non-human or inanimate)' as synonyms, but the latter basic term cannot be established from available sources.

A possible candidate for 'omnis (non-human or inanimate)' could be the adverb/adjective kʼilliy-class-u [Mikailov 1967: 95, 186; Dirr 1908: 48] with polysemy: 'totus / omnis'. The following examples for 'omnis' are found: "All the bull calves went home" [Mikailov 1967: 95], "All the horses" [Dirr 1908: 48], and also referring to humans: "All the women" [Dirr 1908: 48]. In more modern sources, however, this word is quoted as kʼellˈey-class-u with the exclusive meaning 'entirely, wholly', i.e. 'totus' [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 264].

The adjectives gʷˈey-class-u and gʷˈey-class-u-hˈoːnu, which are explicitly glossed as 'all (totus), whole' in [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 234, 352] and [Chumakina et al. 2007] (hˈoːnu means 'some, any' [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 240]) with examples like "He has left all his property to the son", "The whole girl has been covered with gold", "I was washing the dishes yesterday, but could not wash the whole lot" [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 41, 234; Kibrik et al. 1977a 2: 148]. In [Mikailov 1967: 95, 176] this adjective is quoted as gʷiy-class-u with additional examples for the meaning 'all (totus)'.

The last term is the adjective ˈobšːi 'all (totus/omnis)', glossed as 'all, whole, every' in [Chumakina et al. 2007] and supplemented by two examples: "All the people [sg.] went in different directions", "Everybody went to the fields". This word has not been found in other sources.

The word wari was ultimately borrowed from Turkic; see notes on Kryts (proper).

The second term (ǯilːa ~ ǯalːa) also seems to be a loanword. The Koshan and proper Aghul forms are quoted as ǯˈilːa ~ ǯˈalːa in [Suleymanov 2003: 80]; the initial stress points to a recent borrowing (see [Magometov 1970: 20]), although the source is not entirely clear (Arabic?).

Northern Tabasaran:warˈi ~ warːˈi -1

Uslar 1979: 145, 622, 991; Dirr 1905: 45, 159, 225. Polysemy: 'all (omnis) / all (totus)'. This is actually the word from the Khanag subdialect; the proper Dyubek term for 'all' is unknown.

The only term for 'bark' in [Dirr 1908] is, however, qal 'peel; bark; shell' [Dirr 1908: 162, 211]. It is very probable that this reflects an archaic usage, before qal 'skin / bark' was superseded by pˈaqʼut in the meaning 'bark' and its semantic usage was narrowed to 'skin' q.v. It must be noted that qal is also quoted in [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 412] as the only translation for 'bark', but this may be an error.

Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 97. It must be noted that in [Shaumyan 1941: 187] and [Suleymanov 2003: 114] Burshag gal is glossed only as 'shell', whereas in [Suleymanov 2003: 114] the meaning 'bark' is ascribed to the Burshag word ʁark.

It seems that qːark can assuredly be reconstructed as the Proto-Aghul term for 'bark / shell'. In some modern dialects this polysemy tends to be eliminated, with the meaning 'bark' transferred to other words - gužal ~ žigal in Keren or gal in Koshan (Burshag).

The same in the Khiv subdialect: ɣal {ггал} with polysemy: 'bark / peel' [Genko 2005: 39] (the plus sign is apparently omitted by accident, although the white space between the bracket and the siglum "Х." is present). The same in Literary Tabasaran: ɣal {гал} with polysemy: 'bark / rolled out dough' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 96].

Somewhat differently in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut kan 'bark' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 97]. According to [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990], the second Khlyut word for 'bark' is čkːal. The difference between the two terms is unknown, but Khlyut kan is clearly secondary, because its literary counterpart kan means 'dandruff; epidermis' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 149] and the external comparison proves that the semantics of 'skin' is primary [NCED: 699].

The last of these, *qːärkʷa, is formally a Proto-Aghul innovation (Lezgian comparison suggests the development 'a k. of hide' > 'bark' [NCED: 455 f.]).

Two stems with the best distribution - ƛːal and *čːukːa-la /*kːučːa-la - are formally equivalent candidates, and any historical scenario would imply certain zig-zag or parallel semantic shifts.

External North Caucasian comparison suggests that the original meaning of *čːukːa-la /*kːučːa-la was 'noodles' or 'a k. of food rising to the surface after boiling' [NCED: 439]. This semantics is retained in Budukh ('noodles'), but underwent such shifts as 'noodles' > 'sour cream' in Tsakhur, 'noodles' > 'bast, bass' in Kryts and 'noodles' > 'bark, peel' in Rutul, Lezgi, Keren Aghul. The latter shift is not a genetical feature of Rutul, Lezgi and Keren Aghul, but is either an independent development or, rather, an areal isogloss between adjacent territories (see [Koryakov 2006: map 13]).

As for *ƛːal, external North Caucasian comparison points to the original meaning 'color' with the shift 'color' > 'surface' [NCED: 789]; however, it is not particularly risky to assume the shift 'color' > 'bark, peel' for Proto-Lezgian. The meaning 'bark, peel' is retained in Udi and Tabasaran, and emerges as a secondary development in Koshan Aghul (in Proto-Aghul this root apparently meant 'shell').

The fourth inherited term for 'bark', *parqʼːulː, which is attested in the basic meaning in modern Archi, can be a recent introduction, if Dirr's data are correct. If so, this Proto-Lezgian stem demonstrates the shift 'burdock, plantain' > 'bark' in Archi [NCED: 865]. It is important that Lezgian *parqʼːulː finds Avar cognates with the meaning 'bark' [NCED: 865], but it is not clear whether *mVqʼːVr- can be reconstructed as the Proto-Avar-Andic term for 'bark' (perhaps we are dealing with independent developments in Archi and Avar). Note that in the Lezgian languages, *parqʼːulː demonstrates various consonants irregularities of dissimilative/assimilative nature [NCED: 865], particularly the Archi form is pˈaqʼut with lax qʼ (not **pˈaqʼːutpace [NCED]).

Schulze [Schulze 2001: 262] suspects a borrowing from Arabic butʼuːn (the plural form of Arabic batʼn- 'belly, stomach, womb'); the hypothesis is unconvincing both phonetically and morphologically.

Common Udi notes:

Both terms (tapan and bukun) look suspicious, although no potential sources of borrowing have been revealed up to now. If both forms are indigenous, it is rather tapan that should be postulated as the original Udi word for 'belly' in the light of external comparanda.

According to [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 222], the meaning 'stomach' can also be expressed with the loanword maʔda {маъда} (< Azerbaijani mädä 'stomach' or rather directly from Arabic maʕd-at- 'stomach').

Distinct from šaxː 'stomach' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 36]. It must be noted that in [Suleymanov 2003: 115], 'stomach' is quoted as Koshan ʁʷag and šahar, but without exact specification of the subdialect.

NCED: 771. Distribution: The best candidate is *uo=ɬʷɨn ~ *ro=ɬʷɨn, attested with the generic meaning 'belly' in all Nuclear Lezgian lects except for Budukh, but apparently totally lost in the outliers (Udi, Archi). External North Caucasian comparison also seems to confirm =ɬʷɨn as the Proto-Lezgian root for 'belly' [NCED: 771].

Another candidate is Nidzh Udi tapan ~ Budukh tǝpǝn 'belly', but these isolated forms seem very suspicious and rather look like a wandering loanword (although the source of borrowing is unknown). Vartashen Udi bukun and Archi lˈagi 'belly' are likewise isolated; they could only formally pretend to the status of the Proto-Lezgian term for 'belly'. It should be noted that the authors of [NCED] follow Gukasyan's typo that transcribes the Vartashen Udi form as buqːun - actually, the proposed Udi-Archi comparison [NCED: 297] should be rejected.

Udi kala is an Iranian loanword: cf. Persian kalaː-n 'large, great, big; elder', Judeo-Tat kälä 'big, large', etc. Pace [Schulze 2001: 288], kala can hardly be borrowed directly from from Judeo-Tat kälä, since Judeo-Tat linguistic influence on Udi is very modest (if it exists at all) and the idea of a borrowing of such a basic term cannot be accepted.

A different Burshag term for 'big' is quoted by Shaumyan: aHa-r 'big' [Shaumyan 1941: 176], and the same word in the Arsug subdialect: aHa-d 'big' [Shaumyan 1941: 176]. According to [Suleymanov 2003: 85], however, Koshan aHa-d {ахIад} has the more specific meaning 'big, huge, enormous'. On the contrary, the Arsug or Khudig word for 'big' is quoted as ʁaba-ni-d in [Suleymanov 2003: 18, 190].

A second term is qːaba-n- (> qːaba-m-f), which is quoted in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 237] as a neutral term for 'big', but in [Dirr 1907: 128] is glossed as 'big, huge'. In the discovered examples qːaba-n- is applied to an evil monster [Dirr 1907: 83] or to a human penis, which cannot fit the fox burrow [Dirr 1907: 76].

Data from Koshan and Keren dialects are rather discrepant, but it is clear that two Proto-Lezgian roots enter into competition in Aghul: *ʔaχˤɨ- and *pːVhˤV- / *hˤVpːV-. Both scenarios are possible for Proto-Aghul: *ʔaχˤɨ- could be the neutral term for 'big' (retained in non-Koshan dialects, but shifted to 'huge' in Koshan), whereas *hˤVpːV- '?' acquired the generic meaning 'big' in Koshan. On the other hand, *hˤVpːV- could be the Proto-Aghul term for 'big' (retained in Koshan, but lost in non-Koshan dialects), whereas *ʔaχˤɨ- meant 'huge' in Proto-Aghul, retained in Koshan, but shifted to generic 'big' in the non-Koshan dialect. External Lezgian comparison speaks in favor of the second solution.

Keren baba- is of unknown origin. It is proposed in [NCED: 316] to treat baba- as a reduplicated cognate of Koshan ʢaba-.

On the sporadic reduction of initial a- in the Aghul dialectal descendants of *ʔaχˤɨ- see [Suleymanov 1993: 42 f.] with other examples of this process.

The historical phonetics of Lezgi dialects requires additional investigation, but the fluctuation q ~ χ (Gyune/Yarki čʼiqˈi/čʼeqi ~ literary/Yargun čʼeχˈi) seems irregular. Proceeding from general premises, one can suppose that the affricate q is primary here rather than the lenited χ, although external comparison speaks in favour of χ.

Proto-Lezgian:*pːVhˤV- ~ *hˤVpːV- 6

NCED: 316. Distribution: From the distributional point of view, the best candidate is Proto-Lezgian *pːVhˤV- ~ *hˤVpːV-, which is retained in the generic meaning 'big' in Caucasian Albanian, South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh) and Proto-Aghul, but underwent the shift 'big' > 'good' in Archi [NCED: 316].

The second candidate is *ʔaχˤɨ- [NCED: 511], attested as generic 'big' in Tsakhur, Tabasaran, non-Koshan Aghul. However, actually, *ʔaχˤɨ- might have been the Proto-Lezgian root for 'many' q.v. The assumed shift 'many' > 'big' cannot be an inherited feature of Tsakhur, Tabasaran and non-Koshan Aghul, but rather represents parallel independent innovations in Tsakhur and Tabasaran-Aghul (the Tabasaran-Aghul isogloss is apparently of an areal origin; the Proto-Aghul meaning of this root was probably something like 'huge').

The third candidate is *čʼaχV (~ -ä-) [NCED: 386], which means 'big (in general)' in Lezgi and 'massive' in Tabasaran. Despite some interesting external North Caucasian comparanda, this can hardly be considered a good candidate for Proto-Lezgian 'big'.

Various etymologically isolated roots for 'big' are found in Archi and the Rutul dialects; these do not look like loans, but lack Lezgian and North Caucasian cognates.

In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 141] the word čaʁ {чIагъ} is also quoted as a synonym for 'bird (in general)', apparently < Lezgian *čːaqʼʷ(a) 'bird, small bird', although the expected Kryts form should rather be **čaqʼ {чIакъ} (Comrie & Khalilov's error?).

Cf. examples in [Kibrik et al. 1999]: "If only a human had wings, he would fly like a bird" [Kibrik et al. 1999: 263]; "The bird ate the grain, but it was eaten itself by the hawk" [Kibrik et al. 1999: 677]; "The birds have flown away" [Kibrik et al. 1999: 218]; "Ali saw a rock, a bird was flying over it" [Kibrik et al. 1999: 391], "The bird is sitting on the tree" [Kibrik et al. 1999: 469]; "Ali fired at the bird that was flying over him" [Kibrik et al. 1999: 649]; "When the bird caught the snake, it ate it up" [Kibrik et al. 1999: 678]. Two first instances demonstrate that šitʼʸ generally denotes 'small/mid-size bird (in general)', but can be extended to the generic meaning 'bird'.

It is probable that in Proto-Tsakhur the term šitʼʸ(i) denoted 'small/middle bird (in general)' as opposed to specific names of large predatory birds (a typologically possible lexicological situation). Recently the Azerbaijani word guš has been borrowed for generic 'bird', although it should be noted that the old Tsakhur form šitʼʸ(i) seems etymologically obscure, so it could be an old loanword from an unknown source.

As in some other Lezgian cases, it is likely that in Proto-Rutul the term širuk denoted 'small/middle bird (in general)' as opposed to specific names of large predatory birds. Recently several foreign words have been borrowed for the generic meaning 'bird'.

As in some other cases typical of Lezgian languages, it is likely that in Proto-Aghul the term ǯaqʼʷ denoted 'small/middle bird (in general)' as opposed to specific names of large predatory birds. It acquired the generic meaning 'bird' in Koshan (if Kibrik & Kodzasov's data is correct), while other dialects introduced the Iranian loanword naχčir ~ naχšir for 'bird (in general)' (see notes on Tabasaran).

As in some other cases typical of Lezgian languages, it is likely that in Proto-Tabasaran the term ǯaqʼʷ denoted a 'small/middle bird (in general)' as opposed to specific names of large predatory birds. It acquired the generic meaning 'bird' in Literary Tabasaran (if Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov's gloss is correct), while other dialects introduced the Iranian loanwords for 'bird (in general)'.

NCED: 525. Distribution: Most of the attested Lezgian languages demonstrate the lexical opposition between a term for 'small/middle bird (in general)' and various terms for specific kinds of large (predatory) birds. There are no reasons not to project such a system onto the Proto-Lezgian level. Thus, we fill the Proto-Lezgian slot with the generic term for 'small/middle bird'.

Out of several inherited roots for 'small/middle bird', *nɨcʼʷ(a) possesses the best distribution: Archi 'small/middle bird (in general)', Lezgi 'small bird (in general)', also Khnyukh (subdialect of Mukhad Rutul) nicʼ 'a k. of bird' [Ibragimov 1978: 135]. This root also has a good North Caucasian etymology ('small bird' or 'bird').

Initial acʼ= is a prefix with general semantics [Ibragimov 1990: 124; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 41]. Alternatively the Common Tsakhur verb can be analyzed as a=cʼakʼʷan- with the prefix a= (for which see [Ibragimov 1990: 123]), thus [LEDb].

The collocation qʼacʼ 'a bite; a piece' + an auxiliary verb can be reconstructed as the Proto-Tabasaran term for 'to bite'. The Khiv construction with ʁancʼ 'a bite' is an innovation from the distributive point of view.

NCED: 559. Distribution: First of all, we need to exclude analytic patterns of the shape 'tooth' / 'a piece' / 'a bite' + an auxiliary verb, which are attested in Rutul, Aghul, Tabasaran. These look like recent introductions of areal origin.

After that, several verbal roots enter into competition: (1) Udi kašˤ-, isolated root; (2) *ʔeqʼːɨ- (Archi); (3) *kʼosʷɨ- (South Lezgian [Kryts, Budukh] and Lezgi); (4) the Tsakhur verb, whose morphological analysis is not entirely clear. From the distributional point of view, all of them are equivalent candidates. We choose *ʔeqʼːɨ- (Archi, lost in the rest of Lezgian languages), since it actually stems from a good candidate for the status of the Proto-North Caucasian verb for 'to bite' [NCED: 559].

The root *kʼosʷɨ- (South Lezgian, Lezgi) is an inner Samur introduction for 'to bite', although its semantic origin is unknown, since it lacks any cognates outside South Lezgian and Lezgi. Formally *kʼosʷɨ- can be reconstructed as the Proto-Nuclear Lezgian verb for 'to bite'. Cf. also the etymologically obscure Kryts form kʼɨp- 'to bite', which serves as the perfective stem in the suppletive paradigm.

The suffixal -n is not clear; in [Schulze 2001: 298] and [Schulze 2005: 131 (3.2.2.3 #5)] this is treated as a genitive exponent, that is, the underlying Proto-Udi stem should be substantival with the meaning 'blackness' (*'of blackness' > 'black'). It is not obvious, however, that all Udi nouns with the suffix -n- must be analyzed as old qualifying genitive forms.

NCED: 748. Distribution: Four roots enter into competition here. Out of these, *laχːˤV- ~ *loχːˤV- seems to be the best candidate from the distributive point of view. It has been retained as the basic root for 'black' in Archi, on the one hand, and in South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh) and Rutul, on the other, but got lost in other languages. Its only external comparandum is the basic Lak term for 'black' [NCED: 748].

The second candidate is *kʼarɨ-, attested with the meaning 'black' in Tsakhur, Aghul and Tabasaran. This was lost as a separate word in the rest of Lezgian languages, but survived in the compound *kʼarV-šːim 'charcoal', literally 'X pebbles' in Aghul, Rutul, Kryts, Budukh [NCED: 719]. External North Caucasian comparison could point, however, to the original meaning 'charcoal' for this root (cf. Proto-Nakh 'charcoal'), thus the Lezgian compound *kʼarV-šːim might actually mean 'charcoal pebbles' rather than the more trivial 'black pebbles'. If so, one must assume the shift 'charcoal' > 'black' that occurred independently in Tsakhur and Aghul-Tabasaran.

Two residual roots, attested with the generic meaning, should be excluded due to their distribution. The root *mičʼ[ä]- means 'black' in Udi, but 'dark' in other Lezgian languages including Archi, thus the Proto-Lezgian semantic reconstruction 'dark' is very probable; external North Caucasian comparison, however, is not unambiguous, because the Khinalug cognate of this Lezgian root means 'black' (further to Nakh 'yellow, orange', Avar 'dark grey, yellow', Lak 'blind') [NCED: 819].

The fourth root is *čʼulV (~ -o-) which denotes 'black' in Lezgi. This got lost in other Lezgian languages except for Aghul, where it survived in the expression for 'raspberry', literally 'dark/black berry' [NCED: 556]. Actually Lezgian *čʼulV possesses good North Caucasian (strictly speaking East Caucasian) comparanda with the meaning 'black' (Proto-Nakh, Proto-Avar-Andic), but it is hard to suppose that *čʼulV survived with its original meaning 'black' only in Lezgi; we should assume the meaning 'a k. of dark color' for Proto-Lezgian *čʼulV and the late development 'a k. of dark color' > 'black' in modern Lezgi.

The plain root *pːiy is attested in the meaning 'blood' in Caucasian Albanian-Udi and Archi. In West Lezgian (Tsakhur, Rutul), the compound *ʔäʔ-*pːiy 'blood' is observed. Finally, in East Lezgian we see the compound *ʔäʔ-*ɬːʷiy 'blood' (Tabasaran, Lezgi) and the plain *ʔäʔ 'blood' (Aghul). The root *ɬːʷiy is unattested outside this compound, but its external North Caucasian comparanda clearly point to the meaning 'vein' [NCED: 1064]. Formal distribution suggests that the Proto-Lezgian root for 'blood' should have been *pːiy, retained in both of the outliers (Udi and Archi), whereas in Proto-Nuclear Lezgian this was superseded with *ʔäʔ, which was normally used as an element of compounds. The problem of this solution is that the status of *pːiy in the Proto-West Lezgian compound *ʔäʔ-*pːiy appears to be unclear.

Both discussed roots - *pːiy and *ʔäʔ - possess external East Caucasian cognates with the meaning 'blood' [NCED: 496, 879], but it is actually *ʔäʔ which reflects the main candidate for the status of at least the Proto-East Caucasian term for 'blood', whereas the original meaning of *pːiy seems to have been 'blood vessel'. If *ʔäʔ is to be posited as the Proto-Lezgian root for 'blood', we must assume that the root *pːiy independently shifted from 'blood vessel' > 'blood' in both of the outliers (Udi, Archi). On the other hand, both of the attested compounds for 'blood', *ʔäʔ-*pːiy (West Lezgian) and *ʔäʔ-*ɬːʷiy (East Lezgian), acquire the identical structure 'blood + vein'.

NCED: 528. Distribution: Two complementarily distributed roots for 'bone' enter into competition in this criss-crossing situation. The first one is *yirƛʼː [NCED: 528], attested in Udi and Caucasian Albanian on the one hand, and in some Nuclear Lezgian lects (namely Aghul, Northern Tabasaran) on the other. The second one is *ƛʼorapː [NCED: 779], common in Nuclear Lezgian: South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh), Rutul, Southern Tabasaran, Lezgi.

Since the Samur territory generally demonstrates a high number of post-split, contact-induced lexical isoglosses between Nuclear Lezgian lects, the distribution seems to speak in favor of *yirƛʼː as the Proto-Lezgian term for 'bone'. External North Caucasian comparison clearly supports such a solution. On the contrary, *ƛʼorapː in the meaning 'bone' looks like an inner Nuclear Lezgian introduction, which further spread across the Samur territory as an areal isogloss (cf. especially the opposition *yirƛʼː / *ƛʼorapː between two Tabasaran dialectal clusters). External North Caucasian comparison suggests that the Proto-Lezgian meaning of *ƛʼorapː was 'hand bone' [NCED: 779] (actually *ƛʼora-pː with the fossilized plural suffix, used for body parts).

In Archi, *yirƛʼː 'bone' was superseded with *läk, whose original meaning was probably 'leg bone' [NCED: 755]: cf. the meaning 'knee' in Caucasian Albanian (see notes on 'knee') and 'foot, leg' in Tabasaran-Aghul (see notes on 'foot'). In Tsakhur, th meaning 'bone' is expressed by *pːalkʼʷ, originating from the meaning 'a k. of bone' [NCED: 310] (cf. its reflexes in other Lezgian languages: 'cheek-bone', 'spine', 'rib').

In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 217] and [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 22] the word döš is also quoted for 'breast, chest' (the only term in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990], as a synonym of šˤaqː in [Comrie & Khalilov 2010]); it is borrowed from Azerbaijani döš 'breast, chest'.

In all the dialects the inherited term for 'breast (in general)' mɨχɨ ~ muχu was narrowed to the meaning 'female breast', having been superseded by the loanword koksi ~ koksɨ, borrowed from Azerbaijani köks 'breast, chest'.

Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 22; Suleymanov 2003: 136; Shaumyan 1941: 152. It must be noted that in [Magometov 1970: 23] the Burshag word for 'breast' is transcribed as muχːur - an obvious error. The same term in the Arsug subdialect: muχur 'breast' [Shaumyan 1941: 152].

Suleymanov 2003: 136; Shaumyan 1941: 152; Magometov 1970: 195 strophe 6. According to Magometov's example, applied to both men and women. No specific Tpig terms for 'female breast' have been found in [Suleymanov 2003].

The same in Tsirkhe and Duldug subdialects: muχur 'breast' [Shaumyan 1941: 152].

Common Aghul notes:

The common Aghul term bizi 'female breast, nipple' (see also the additional forms in [Shaumyan 1941: 154]) is of unknown origin; cf. [NCED: 305] with hypothetical West Caucasian comparanda.

NCED: 829. Distribution: This stem is retained in the meaning 'breast' in all Nuclear Lezgian lects, except for Tsakhur, where the basic term for 'breast' is an Azerbaijani loanword, whereas *moχor narrowed to 'female breast'. In Archi *moχor shifted to 'brisket' ('breast' > 'brisket' is natural, but not vice versa), having been superseded with the etymologically obscure form χˈatum. No traces of the root *moχor in Udi. External North Caucasian comparison confirms *moχor as the Proto-Lezgian term for 'breast (in general)'.

In two Udi dialects, 'breast' is expressed by forms with synchronic polysemy: 'breast / mountain slope', apparently with the development 'mountain slope' > 'breast'. At least for the Vartashen Udi form *ʔawχː(a), both internal and external comparison suggest the original meaning 'slope' [NCED: 244] (the Nidzh Udi term is etymologically isolated). It should be noted, however, that theoretically both directions of the semantic shift between 'breast' and 'slope' are possible.

The root bokː- is synchronically unsegmentable; as in many other cases with Udi roots in b-, Lezgian cognates suggest that b- is a petrified prefix (a former class exponent, see [Harris 2002: 72 ff., 215 ff.] w. lit. and discussion), thus b=okː-.

Note that xʷ is still retained in some forms in Mishlesh and Literary Tsakhur, but it has been totally superseded by x in Mikik under the influence of numerous forms with the regular delabialization oxʷ > ox (the Gelmets data are unknown).

Distinct from k=irš-e haʔ- [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 144], which is translated by Dzhamalov & Semedov as 'to burn (trans.)', but the only example "He has lit a splinter" points to the meaning 'to set fire to smth.'. Causative from k=irš-, which is translated in [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 144] as 'to burn (intrans.)' (examples: "The firewood burns", "The lamp is lit"), but such a glossing also seems an inaccuracy.

In [Ibragimov 1978: 224], both Ixrek forms, h=ux- and k=irš-, are quoted as synonyms for 'to catch fire'; they are semantic counterparts of Mukhad l=ikʼʷ- 'to catch fire'.

In all the dialects the equivalents of the meaning 'to burn (trans.)' represent regular causative formations from different verbs for 'to burn (intrans.)', formed with the verb (h=)aʔ- (/ h=äqʼ-) 'to do'. Luchek l=ikʼʷ- in the generic meaning 'to burn (intrans.)' is an innovation; external Lezgian comparison proves that the primary meaning of this root was 'to catch fire' as in Mukhad and Ixrek.

NCED: 860. Distribution: Retained with the basic meaning in all the languages, except for some Nuclear Lezgian lects.

In West Lezgian (Tsakhur, Rutul), this root was superseded with the synchronic causative from *ʔeɬ(ː)ʷVr-, whose original meaning is 'to get heated' [NCED: 1036]. Subsequently in Luchek Rutul, it was superseded with the synchronic causative from *ʔikʼʷa-, whose original meaning is 'to catch fire' [NCED: 632]. Koshan Aghul, 'to burn (intrans./trans.)' is a suffixal derivation from the verb *ʔVrɬːan- 'to boil (intrans./trans.)' [NCED: 1030].

Common Udi *muχ; it is claimed in [Schulze 2001: 299a] that Udi muχ was borrowed from Persian mex 'nail', which cannot be true, because Persian mex is a terminus technicus with the meaning 'nail, peg', not 'fingernail' (the Persian term was adapted as Vartashen miχ 'nail, peg').

As proposed in [NCED: 210, 1002], this is a compound: ƛʼon-tʼˈol, the second part of which (-tʼˈol) can be identified with Lezgian *tʼɨl (~ -o-) 'finger'. In turn, the first element ƛʼon- is analyzed in [NCED: 210] as ƛʼo-n- from the Archi verb ƛʼʷˈa- 'to slaughter', i.e. 'nail' as '[the part of the] finger which is being cut'. The latter solution is unlikely on two points. First, both the Archi verb ƛʼʷˈa- and its Proto-Lezgian ancestor *ʔirƛʼːʷär- mean 'to slaughter (an animal)', rather than the generic 'to cut, cut off'. Next, the semantic derivation 'to cut off' > 'fingernail' seems typologically problematic.

Alternatively analyzed in [Kibrik et al. 1977a 1: 301] as ƛʼontʼ-ˈol with a root ƛʼontʼ and the relatively common nominal suffix -ol.

Note the retention of tense fricative šː in the Northern subdialects. The Kondik oblique stem šibu- (not **ši̥bu-) also points to an old tense consonant, although such paradigms are expected to get levelled after the monosyllabic absolutive form.

NCED: 814 (as *ɬːämː). Distribution: This root is retained in the generic meaning '(finger)nail' in Udi, on the one hand, and in some Nuclear Lezgian lects, on the other: West Lezgian (Tsakhur, Rutul) and Tabasaran. External North Caucasian comparison confirms such a semantic reconstruction for *mːäɬː [NCED: 814].

Some local substitutions are observed in individual languages. In Archi the obscure form ʼontʼˈol is attested. In Kryts, the old root is superseded with *mičʼ 'hoof' [NCED: 819]. In Aghul and Lezgi, 'nail' is denoted by *kerk, whose original meaning is not clear and general antiquity is dubious [NCED: 689] (as proved by the Tabasaran data, *kerk is not the Proto-East Lezgian root for 'nail', but a late areal innovation).

Superseded with an Azerbaijani loanword in some Nuclear Lezgian lects.

Common Udi *aso(y), with a laryngeal prothesis in Vartashen (note, however, that normally in such cases the laryngeal prothesis is characteristic of the Nidzh dialect, not the Vartashen one). The suffixal -y of the Nidzh form is explained in [Schulze 2001: 282] as a result of analogy with the Nidzh word-formative suffix -oy, but actually the -y suffix is observed in some Nuclear Lezgic forms (namely Rutul), thus we rather deal with the archaic formation, not synchronic derivation (in such a case Vartashen haso can be interpreted as the occasiaonl loss of the final glide).

Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 205. For the Fite dialect two words are quoted as synonyms for 'cloud' in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 205]: qːiri and amsar; the latter is also attested in [Tarlanov 1994: 240], but without dialectal provenance.

The widespread Aghul term qːiri was borrowed from some neighboring languages of the Dargi group (cf. Chirag qːiri 'cloud') or, rather, both words represent a common loanword of unknown origin. This means that Fite amsar (historically ams-ar with the fossilized plural suffix) is the only candidate for the Proto-Aghul term for 'cloud'.

Two words for 'cloud' are quoted for the Khiv subdialect: ǯif {жжиф} with polysemy: 'cloud / rain cloud' [Genko 2005: 68] and ams {амс} 'cloud' [Genko 2005: 18] (semantic nuances are unknown; the latter form is not explicitly marked as Khiv due to erroneous omission of the plus sign).

NCED: 243. Distribution: A rather complicated criss-crossed situation with several roots entering into competition.

First, we must rule out the root *kʼapʼal, which shifted from its original meaning 'group, heap, sheep-flock' > 'cloud' in Kryts [NCED: 448].

Second, we may exclude the root *kːomːol, which means 'cloud, fog, rheumatism' in West Lezgian (Tsakhur, Rutul) and simply 'rheumatism' in Lezgi. This root has a fairly modest distribution in the meaning 'cloud' and can hardly reflect the Proto-Lezgian basic term. Its Proto-Lezgian or at least Proto-Nuclear Lezgian meaning can be either 'rheumatism' (if the shift 'rheumatism' > 'cloud, fog' is possible) or rather 'a k. of precipitation or wet weather' > 'cloud'. In this case, the shift 'a k. of precipitation or wet weather' > 'rheumatism' is a late Tsakhur-Rutul-Lezgi isogloss of areal origin, or the polysemy 'a k. of precipitation or wet weather / rheumatism' existed already on the Proto-Nuclear Lezgian level. Additionally, the retention of the root *ʔamsː with the meaning 'cloud' in some Rutul dialects may indicate that the semantic development *kːomːol 'a k. of precipitation or wet weather' > 'cloud' is a late Tsakhur-Rutul process after the split of Proto-West Lezgian. External North Caucasian comparison also proves that the original meaning of Lezgian *kːomːol was 'a k. of precipitation or wet weather' [NCED: 737].

The real choice consists of two Proto-Lezgian roots: *ʔamsː and *tːiɬːʷ, which are to be distributed among two specific meanings: 'cloud' and 'fog'.

On formal grounds, the stem *ʔamsː [NCED: 243] has a better chance to represent the Proto-Lezgian term for 'cloud'. It is retained as 'cloud' in Udi, on the one hand, and in Rutul and Aghul, on the other. The root *tːiɬːʷ [NCED: 400], whose Proto-Lezgian meaning in this case must have been 'fog', is retained as 'fog' in South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh) and in Aghul. In Lezgi, *tːiɬːʷ expanded to 'cloud', having acquired polysemy 'fog / cloud' (whereas the old root *ʔamsː got lost). There are two difficulties with such a scenario. First, *tːiɬːʷ developed into 'cloud' ('fog' > cloud') in Archi. Next, both roots swapped their meanings in Proto-Tabasaran, where *ʔamsː probably meant 'fog' and *tːiɬːʷ meant 'cloud'; it should be noted, however, that the Proto-Tabasaran semantic reconstruction is not very certain.

The second scenario is that *ʔamsː meant 'fog' in Proto-Lezgian, whereas *tːiɬːʷ meant 'cloud'. This implies that *tːiɬːʷ has been retained as 'cloud' in Archi and probably Proto-Tabasaran, but independently underwent the shift 'cloud' > 'fog' in South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh) and Aghul. In its turn, *ʔamsː 'fog' only retained its meaning in Proto-Tabasaran, but independently shifted from 'fog' > 'cloud' in Udi, Rutul and Aghul. It should be noted that both roots swapped their meanings in Aghul.

The first scenario is much more economical; thus, we follow the formal distribution and reconstruct Proto-Lezgian *ʔamsː 'cloud' and Proto-Lezgian *tːiɬːʷ 'fog'. The problem is that external North Caucasian comparison suggests that it should be *tːiɬːʷ that denoted 'cloud' in Proto-Lezgian. In any case, we must note that, due to natural reasons, both meanings, 'cloud' and 'fog', are frequently interchangeable in mountainous regions.

An additional term for 'cloud' is the etymologically obscure Caucasian Albanian form alʸeg. It is proposed in [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-5] that alʸeg originates from Lezgian *tːiɬːʷ, but the assumed sound shifts (not discussed by Gippert and Schulze) seem strange and irregular.

'Cloud' is expressed by Azerbaijani or Dargi loanwords in Budukh and Aghul.

It should be noted, however, that in [Suleymanov 2003: 144], 'cold' is quoted as urʁa-d {ургъад} and urʢa-d ~ urʕa-d {ургIад} (apparently urʢa-d), which represent forms of the Arsug or Khudig subdialect, as is evident from the suffixal -d.

Only in the Burshag subdialect of Koshan (but not in other Koshan subdialects) this term was superseded with a new adjective, derived from another substantive with the meaning 'cold, frost' - mekʼ (oblique mekʼ-ila-), see the data above.

Two words with the meaning 'cold' are attested in the Khiv subdialect: ʁ=ˈarʁu {гъаргъу} [Genko 2005: 41] (historically ʁ=ˈa-r-ʁu with the fossilized class exponent -r-) and mičʼ-li {мичIли} 'cold' [Genko 2005: 121] - both terms are applied to objects, but the semantic or pragmatic difference is unclear ('cold' and 'cool'?). Distinct from Khiv aqˤˈu {аьхъю} 'cold' [Genko 2005: 25], which is applied to weather, as may be seen from Genko's examples (cf. also an additional example in [Genko 2005: 147 sub tʼaqʼraqʼ]).

It seems that Northern me-r-čʼu-lˈi ~ mičʼi-lˈi, Southern mičʼ-li can be reconstructed with the specific meaning 'cool, chilly', as retained in both Northern and Southern dialects, although in the Khanag subdialect this acquired the generic meaning 'cold'. It is confirmed by comparative Aghul data that this adjective was derived from the oblique stem of the substantive 'cold, frost' (this substantive is retained as Tabasaran mikʼ ‘wind’ q.v.).

As for Northern aqˤˈi ~ aqˤ-lˈi, Southern aqˤˈu, its normal meaning is 'cold (of weather)', although in the Dyubek subdialect aqˤ-lˈi acquired the meaning 'cold (in general)' (apparently the Dyubek final -li is due to influence on the part of merčʼu-lˈi 'cool, chilly'). This term was derived from the verbal root that is retained in the prefixed form as Dyubek da=ʔaqˤ- 'to become cold' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 97], Khanag d=aqˤ- 'to become cool, chilly' [Dirr 1905: 163].

It is uncertain how the Proto-Lezgi word for 'cold' should be reconstructed. According to the external data, it is likely that Akhty meqʼˈi is an archaic form, whereas the Gyune participle qːa-yˈi represent a late introduction of areal origin, which superseded meqʼˈi in the meaning ‘cold (of objects)’.

Proto-Lezgian:*meƛʼä- 4

NCED: 808. Distribution: It seems that in all (or almost all) attested cases the adjective 'cold' can be interpreted as a synchronic derivate from either the substantive 'cold, frost' or the verb 'to be cold' (participle pattern).

A rigoristic approach would surmise leaving the Proto-Lezgian slot empty. Nevertheless, we prefer to reconstruct Proto-Lezgian *meƛʼä- 'cold (adj.), derived from Proto-Lezgian *meƛʼ 'cold, frost' [NCED: 808]. This seems to be the most archaic Lezgian expression for 'cold (adj.)', and, indeed, the derivation 'cold, frost' > 'cold (adj.)' can theoretically be reconstructed for the Proto-Lezgian level.

The substantive *meƛʼ 'cold, frost' is a Common Lezgian stem, since it is attested in Udi and in Nuclear Lezgian: Aghul, Lezgi (also in Tabasaran, where it shifted to the meaning 'wind (in general)'). The adjective stem *meƛʼä- 'cold' also displays relevant distribution. It is attested in Caucasian Albanian, on the one hand, and in West Lezgian (Tsakhur, Rutul) and Proto-Lezgi, on the other. In some East Lezgian lects - Koshan Aghul (Burshag), Southern Tabasaran (Khiv) - the adjectives for 'cold' contain the same root, but these forms represent synchronic derivatives from the substantive *meƛʼ 'cold, frost'.

There is also another suppletive verb with the more generic meaning 'to come, arrive / to bring (animated & inanimate obj.)', formed with the same roots aʔ- [perf.] / al- [imperf., fut., imv.] and the zero prefix (or with the prefix ʔ- - an automatic prothesis for vocalic onset): allʸes [Kibrik et al. 1999: 63, 869].

According to the data in [Makhmudova 2001] and [Ibragimov 1978], the suppletive paradigm is as follows: class=iʔi ~ class=r=uʔ-u-r- [imperf.] / y=iqʼ-ɨ-r [perf.] / class=ɨqʼ-a [imv.]. In the imperfective form, with polysemy: 'to go / to come'.

According to the data in [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006], the suppletive paradigm is as follows: class=iʔi [imperf.] / y=iqʼ-ɨ-r [perf.] / class=iqʼ-ä [imv.]. In the imperfective form, with polysemy: 'to go / to come'.

An irregular verb (with two synonymous stems for the imperfective), but the paradigms generally coincide in all three dialects. Two imperfective stems with polysemy: 'to go / to come' are genetically related. See notes on 'to go'.

A very irregular verb, although the suppletive paradigms generally coincide in all dialects. In the imperfective and prohibitive forms, with polysemy: 'to go / to come'; further see notes on 'to go'. All dialectal perfective forms (arg-i-, ad-i-, ar-i-) are etymologically related, originating from one proto-root [NCED: 422].

NCED: 1016. Reconstruction shape: The exact phonetic shape of a root with such a structure is not reconstructible. According to the table of correspondences in [NCED: 150], one could expect *ʔʷ > Udi p instead of observed 0, but this can hardly be an obstacle to the whole etymology.

Semantics and structure: Primary verbal root, used as the perfective stem for 'to come'. Further see notes on 'to go'.

As noted in [Maisak 2008a: 108 f.] and [Schulze 2005: 541 f. (3.4.2.1 #23)], the paradigm is suppletive in both dialects: bi- (present-infinitive, imperative, future) / pːur- (past). Udi bi- is historically analyzed as b=i- with the b-prefix, see notes on 'to burn'. The second root pːur- is probably to be analyzed as *pːu-ar- with the past stem of the light verb -ar- 'came', thus [Gippert et al. 2008: II-44]. An expression for 'to kill' (q.v.) is based on the same synchronical root bi-.

NCED: 661. Distribution: The Lezgian data on the verbs for 'to die' and 'to kill' can be summarized as follows (the slash sign "/" denotes lability):

'TO DIE/TO KILL'

Proto-CA-Udi

Archi

Kryts

Budukh

Tsakhur

Rutul

Aghul

Tabasaran

Lezgi

*ʔiƛʼe [NCED: 661]

'die/kill' imperf.

'die' sg.

'die/kill'

'die'

'die', 'kill' sg. (different prefixes)

'die/kill' sg. (redupl. = pl.)

'die/kill'

'die/kill' sg.

'die/kill'

*ʔilχʷe [NCED: 635]

'die' pl.

'die/kill' pl.

*ʔatʼʷɨ- [NCED: 271]

'kill'

'die', 'kill' pl. (different prefixes)

*ʔarčːa- [NCED: 265]

'kill'

*VpʼV

*pʼu- 'die/kill' perf.

The root *ʔiƛʼe can safely be reconstructed as the Proto-Lezgian labile verb for 'to die / to kill', at least with singular subject ('to die') / object ('to kill') and at least as the imperfective stem.

The only languages that suppletively discriminate between the imperfective and perfective stems are Caucasian Albanian and Udi. Formally, such a situation could reflect a Proto-Lezgian feature, but CA-Udi *pʼu- (with the ablaut variant *upʼ-) is isolated within Lezgian and possesses rather scant external comparanda (the Khinalug verb iːb-i 'to kill' and the imperative stem iːb-i 'to die'), so it is preferable to regard Caucasian Albanian-Udi *pʼu- as a secondary complication of the verbal paradigm in question.

Archi and some Nuclear Lezgian lects demonstrate the lexical opposition between verbs with singular and plural subject/object. Formally, this could be a late innovation of areal origin, but there are actually no reasons not to project such a opposition onto the Proto-Lezgian level. If so, the correspondence sg. *ʔiƛʼe / pl. *ʔilχʷe between Archi and Tabasaran should be reflecting the Proto-Lezgian situation. In many other lects *ʔiƛʼe acquired both singular and plural functions.

Some of the lects have lost the original lability. Thus, in modern Udi 'to kill' is the synchronic causative from 'to die'. In Archi, 'to kill' is euphemistically expressed by the verb 'to perform an action most typically associated with the given object in the current situation' (*ʔarčːa-), although the synchronic causatives from 'to die (sg.)' and 'to die (pl.)' are also used for 'to kill'. In Tsakhur, 'to die' and 'to kill' are distinguished by means of different fossilized prefixes.

In Budukh, 'to kill' is expressed by *ʔatʼʷɨ-, whose original meaning was 'to cut' [NCED: 271]. Independently, the same root shifted to plural 'to die, kill' in Tsakhur.

Note the retention of tense fricative χː in the Northern subdialects. The Kondik oblique stem χuyi- (not **χu̥yi-) also points to an old tense consonant, although such paradigms are expected to get levelled after the monosyllabic absolutive form.

NCED: 1073. Distribution: A rather stable root, retained in Udi and Proto-Nuclear Lezgian. In Lezgi, superseded with *kicʼ / *cʼik, whose original meaning was 'puppy', as proved by its Lezgian and external North Caucasian cognates [NCED: 692].

The same basic verb in the Khanag subdialect: wuqː-ˈ 'to drink' [Uslar 1979: 627, 1001]. It should be noted that in [Dirr 1905: 212, 237], this verb is transcribed as wuʁ- or uʁ- {у̨ҕ-} 'to drink' - the form either actually represents some specific Southern Tabasaran subdialect or the beginning of the phonetic process qː > ʁ in Khanag during the 2nd half of the 19th century between Uslar's and Dirr' records.

The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: wuqː-ˈ {вубкъув} 'to drink' [Genko 2005: 33].

The latter one, uq- 'to drink', is clearly an innovation in some Southern subdialects (Chara, Sirtych, also Literary Tabasaran); the external Lezgian etymology points out that its primary meaning was 'to suck' [NCED: 222], and this semantics is still retained in such prefixed Tabasaran verbs as Khyuryuk, Khiv kː=ˈuq- {ккубхъув, ккухъуб} 'to suck' [Genko 2005: 96, 97]. It should be noted, however, that this proto-root also acquired the generic meaning 'to drink' in the Lezgi language.

The choice between uɢ-ˈ ~ wuqː-ˈ (Northern 'to drink', lost in Southern) and uχ- (Northern 'to sip', Southern 'to drink') is not so easy. The former verb originates from the best candidate for the status of the Proto-Lezgian root for 'to drink' (*HVqːVr-), but the latter one, uχ-, corresponds to the basic Aghul verb uχ-a- 'to drink'. In all likelihood, the Northern verb uɢ-ˈ ~ wuqː-ˈ represents an archaism, whereas local Southern uχ- is a recent innovation (perhaps of areal origin, cf. the Aghul term).

NCED: 616. Distribution: *HVqːVr- can safely be postulated as the Proto-Lezgian root for 'to drink'. It is retained in its original meaning in Caucasian Albanian and Udi, on the one hand, and in Nuclear Lezgian, on the other: West Lezgian (Tsakhur, Rutul), South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh), Proto-Tabasaran (Northern dialect). In Archi, this root has survived in the substantive 'a gulp'.

Three other roots, attested with the generic meaning 'to drink' in Lezgian lects, are clear innovations from the distributive point of view.

In Archi, 'to drink' is expressed with *ʔVcʼV (~ -cʼː-). This root seems isolated within Lezgian, but external North Caucasian comparison seems to point to the original meaning 'to gulp (vel sim.)' [NCED: 1017].

The root *ʔoχʷa has acquired the basic meaning 'to drink' in Aghul and some Southern Tabasaran subdialects (an areal isogloss); its original Proto-Lezgian meaning is likely to have been 'to gulp' (further to North Caucasian 'to suck') [NCED: 1027].

Similarly, *ʔoqʷa- has become the basic root for 'to drink' in Lezgi and some Southern Tabasaran subdialects (an areal isogloss); its original Proto-Lezgian meaning was 'to suck' [NCED: 222].

Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 242; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 684. Apparently a participle from an unattested stative verb. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010], the paronymous adjective säʕä is also quoted as a synonym. It must be noted that the correspondence Kryts (proper) ʕ /Alyk Kryts ʔ looks suspicious; this could be a borrowing from an unknown source.

A second candidate is s=uqu-d or s=uqʼu-d 'dry', quoted in [Dirr 1912: 172, 201] with the example "dry firewood" (note that Dirr's notation rather speaks in favour of s=uqʼu-d with ejective -qʼ-). This is the participle from the verb 'to get dry', which is quoted in [Makhmudova 2001: 245] as s=uɢ- {сукъас} with -ɢ- (sic!). Its counterpart in the Borch-Khnov dialect sounds as su=q=uq- {сухъухъури} 'to get dry' [Ibragimov 1978: 268, 272], with -q- in the root. The exact phonetics, as well as the etymology of this Rutul verb is unclear.

Morphologically different in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut qːur-qːˈur 'dry' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 242]; this is a reduplicated formation from the same Lezgi root.

Proto-Lezgian:*ʔiqʼːʷar- 1

NCED: 631. Distribution: The primary verbal root *ʔiqʼːʷar- 'to get dry' is attested in Archi, on the one hand, and in East Lezgian (Aghul, Tabasaran, Lezgi), on the other. Its adjective derivatives of a participial nature with the meaning 'dry' have survived in all attested Lezgian lects, except for South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh) and some Tabasaran subdialects. In a number of Lezgian languages, inherited adjectival forms were phonetically influenced by the Azerbaijani word guru 'dry', but there are no reasons to consider these to be loanwords, since *ʔiqʼːʷar- is deeply rooted in Lezgian and possesses reliable North Caucasian comparanda [NCED: 631].

In South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh), 'dry' is a participle from the etymologically obscure verbal root *saʔV- or *aʔV-, unattested elsewhere [LEDb: #251].

In many Tabasaran subdialects, the original participle has been superseded with the participle from another verb for 'to dry (intrans.)': ecː-, see notes on Common Tabasaran.

Common Udi *iˤm-uχ with the occasional assimilative labialization i > u in Nidzh um-uχˤ (-uχ is a fossilized plural exponent). The irregular loss of pharyngealization in Vartashen im-uχ is to be explained by the influence of the verb i-bak-sun 'to hear' q.v. and the noun i 'hearing, ability to hear' (if it actually exists; see notes on 'to hear'; in [Schulze 2001: 283] Udi i is incorrectly interpreted as 'ear (anatomic)').

All sources quote kːul and očˤal as synonyms for 'earth, soil', except for [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990]. The latter dictionary gives only kːul as the translation for 'earth, soil' (with polysemy: 'earth, soil / territory, plot'). On the contrary, text evidence from [Ganenkov et al. 2008: 240 (8), 254 (34, 41)] confirms očˤal as the most generic and common word for 'earth, soil', as well as 'land': "There is a place named so-and-so ... which existed on the Nidzh land (očˤal) as early as 2400-2500 years ago", "The soil (očˤal) cleans it (just prepared vodka) of its odours ... We take it (a buried jug with vodka) out from the ground (očˤal)".

According to Dm. Ganenkov's p.c., in Nidzh kːul indeed means 'soil', but this word is very rare in the collected corpus. The default expression for all the meanings is currently očˤal.

Vartashen Udi:kːul {кIул} 2

Gukasyan 1974: 146; Fähnrich 1999: 21; Dirr 1903: 28; Schiefner 1863: 83; Schulze 2001: 293; Starchevskiy 1891: 499. Cf. some examples for the meaning 'soil', like "they threw/scattered the earth", "order to deliver some soil from his fatherland!", "the elder sisters covered their urine with earth in order not to let it foam" [Dirr 1903: 28, 46, 89], "a handful of earth" [Schiefner 1863: 54]. In [Bezhanov & Bezhanov 1902] kːul normally means 'land' or 'soil', e.g., Mt. 13.5 "Others fell on rocky ground, where they didn't have much soil (kːul), and immediately they sprang up, because they had no depth of earth (očˤal)".

Distinct from the term očˤal {очъал} 'earth' [Gukasyan 1974: 185; Fähnrich 1999: 25; Dirr 1903: 19, 26; Schiefner 1863: 78; Schulze 2001: 303; Starchevskiy 1891: 499]. In [Gukasyan 1974: 185] this is quoted as očːˤal {оч́ал} (apparently an error, see notes on Nidzh Udi); in [Fähnrich 1999: 25] the word is quoted as simply očal - apparently for očˤal; also quoted as očˤal in [Schulze 2001], despite the fact that Bežanovs' {ч̆} may cover čː, čˤ and čːˤ; graphical {c} in [Schiefner 1863], {ч} in [Dirr 1903] and {ц} in [Starchevskiy 1891] can hardly clarify the phonetical nature of the sibilant. It should be noted that normally this term is graphically opposed to očːˤi 'dirt, mud' (e.g., [Fähnrich 1999: 25; Dirr 1903: 18; Schiefner 1863: 78]).

Common Udi *kːul 'earth, soil' (as opposed to *očˤal 'earth, ground, land'). In Modern Nidzh kːul is currently being superseded by očˤal 'earth, ground, land' under the influence of the polysemy in Azerbaijani and Russian. Udi kːul, however, lacks any etymology; in [Schulze 2001: 293] kːul is treated as a borrowing from Azerbaijani kül 'ashes', but it is not very likely due to semantic difference.

The Proto-Tsakhur term was no doubt nʸaqʼʷ, already with polysemy: 'earth, soil / grave, tomb'; in Early Proto-Tsakhur the meaning was simply 'earth, soil'; in modern Mishlesh this has been narrowed down to 'grave', having been superseded by Proto-Tsakhur čʼiye 'earth, ground' > 'earth, ground; earth, soil' (under the influence of generic terms for 'earth' in Azerbaijani, Russian and Avar?). This scenario follows from the fact that the shift 'soil' > 'grave' is logical and typologically normal, whereas vice versa can hardly be imagined. The noun ǯil denoted 'earth floor' in Proto-Tsakhur.

The Proto-Aghul term for 'earth, soil' was neqʼʷ, probably already with polysemy: 'earth, soil / grave, tomb'. Currently neqʼʷ in its first meaning tends to be superseded by the word rug, which is originally the Common Aghul term for 'dust' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 200] (an areal process influenced on the part of Tabasaran rug 'soil' q.v.).

The word rug can safely be reconstructed as the Proto-Tabasaran term for 'soil', opposed to ǯil 'ground' and yišʷ 'place'. In Literary Tabasaran, ǯil has undergone secondary broadening into the meaning 'soil' under the influence of similar polysemy in Azerbaijani and Russian.

Uslar 1896: 541, 613. Paradigm: rug [abs.] / rukːʷ-ˈadi- [obl.]. Polysemy: 'earth, soil / dust'. Examples: "I threw some soil on the grain", "The earth of this village is good (= fertile)" [Uslar 1896: 541], "The mouse throws soil down from the ceiling" [Uslar 1896: 326], "Human eyes are filled with contentment or with earth (a person must be satisfied or dead)" [Uslar 1896: 349], "You have put a lot of earth over this roof" [Uslar 1896: 353].

Distinct from Gyune čːil [Uslar 1896: 594, 613], which means 'earth, ground, earth floor' rather than specific 'soil', according to Uslar's examples: "The earth trembled (= earthquake)", "The earth is covered with grass", "He has the earth as his mattress, the sky for cover" [Uslar 1896: 594], "I have smoothed the earth" [Uslar 1896: 411], but also "The earth of this village is fertile" [Uslar 1896: 594].

The external comparison strongly suggests that naqʼʷ was the Proto-Lezgi term for 'earth, soil'. The word rug originally meant 'dust', but has acquired the additional meaning 'soil' - an areal isogloss shared with Aghul and Tabasaran (q.v.). Lezgi čːil denoted 'ground', but currently tends to broaden into the meaning 'soil' under the influence of similar polysemy in Azerbaijani and Russian.

Proto-Lezgian:*näqʼʷ 3

NCED: 848. Distribution: This stem is retained with the specific meaning 'earth, soil' in Archi, on the one hand, and in almost all Nuclear Lezgian languages (except for Tabasaran, and some dialects of Tsakhur, Aghul and Lezgi), on the other.

In the Udi branch, however, *näqʼʷ has been lost, and 'earth, soil' is now expressed with the etymologically obscure form kːul. Furthermore, in Nidzh Udi, the word očˤal, whose Proto-Udi meaning was 'earth, ground', has acquired the second meaning 'earth, soil'.

In East Lezgian, *näqʼʷ tends to be superseded with *rukː, whose original meaning was 'dust' [NCED: 603]. This is not a Proto-East Lezgian replacement, but a late areal isogloss (probably Tabasaran-induced): *rukː became the default root for 'earth, soil' in Tabasaran, many Aghul dialects (Koshan, Gequn, Fite, proper Aghul) and some Lezgi dialects (Gyune).

Reconstruction of the Proto-Lezgian term for 'earth, ground' is less obvious.

The root *čːil [NCED: 342] can be reconstructed with the Proto-Nuclear Lezgian meaning 'earth floor' (thus Tsakhur, Rutul, Aghul, Tabasaran, Lezgi). In East Lezgian (Aghul, Tabasaran, Lezgi), however, this word also denotes 'earth, ground', as opposed to various terms for 'soil'. External North Caucasian comparison suggests that *čːil could theoretically be reconstructed as the Proto-Lezgian root for 'earth, ground'.

On the other hand, in Proto-Caucasian Albanian-Udi, the word for 'earth, ground' originates from Lezgian *yo(m)čV (~ ʔ-) [NCED: 684]: Proto-Udi očˤa-l 'earth, ground', Caucasian Albanian ašˤa-l 'earth, ground' (the correspondence Udi čˤ ~ CA šˤ is unique, but may represent different treatments of the Proto-Lezgian consonant cluster). In the rest of Lezgian, the root got lost. Lezgian *yo(m)čV (~ ʔ-) possesses good external comparanda with the semantics of 'earth' [NCED: 684].

Thus, the easiest solution is to reconstruct *yo(m)čV (~ ʔ-) with the Proto-Lezgian meaning 'earth, ground' and *čːil with the Proto-Lezgian meaning 'earth floor'.

If so, *yo(m)čV 'earth, ground' must have been lost in Archi (where there is only a new adverbial formation 'on the ground') and in Nuclear Lezgian. Various terms for 'earth, ground' are attested in Nuclear Lezgian: in Proto-Tsakhur, *čʼura [NCED: 555] (with the semantic shift 'clearing, uncultivated land' > 'earth, ground'); in South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh), etymologically obscure qʼum; in East Lezgian (Aghul, Tabasaran, Lezgi), *čːil (with the shift 'earth floor' > 'earth, ground').

It should be noted that in some East Lezgian lects (Literary Tabasaran, Literary Lezgi), *čːil has further shifted from 'earth, ground' > 'earth, soil'.

NCED: 207. Distribution: This root has survived only in the two outliers: Caucasian Albanian-Udi and Archi, where it still retains its basic status. Besides the formal distribution, external North Caucasian comparison also proves that *ʔikʷVn- was the Proto-Lezgian root for 'to eat'.

In Proto-Nuclear Lezgian, *ʔikʷVn- was superseded by the verbal root *ʔiʔʷäl- [NCED: 625], whose original meaning is not entirely clear (cf. its Archi cognate with the meaning 'to want to eat smth.', and further North Caucasian comparanda which mean 'to bite' or 'to feed on smth.').

Additionally, in Tsakhur, *ʔiʔʷäl- was superseded by *ʔiɬʷV(n)- [NCED: 516], which originally meant 'to graze, pasture' in Proto-Lezgian.

Replacements: {'to graze, pasture' > 'to eat'} (Tsakhur).

Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular.

Semantics and structure: Primary verbal root with several Ablaut grades.

The same in other subdialects:Khyuryuk pelinʒuw {пелинззув} ~ peʔlˈuʒuw {пеълуззув} 'egg' [Genko 2005: 128, 129] (the first variant is erroneously quoted as peliʒuw {пелиззув} in the head of the entry), Khapil peluˤʒuw {пелюззюв} 'egg' [Genko 2005: 128].

Superseded with the loanword in the Kumi and Chuvek subdialects: murtˈa {мурта} 'egg' [Genko 2005: 123].

Northern Tabasaran forms of the shape pelˈinʒuw represent the recent neologism 'hen's white' (see above). Dyubek paːluχˤˈuw ~ peliχˤuw is a compressed compound of the same kind: 'hen's X', although its second part is not clear.

The forms murta and yumurta represent a borrowing from Azerbaijani yumurta 'egg'.

Khiv gugu seems to be the best candidate for the status of Proto-Tabasaran 'egg', although its external etymology is rather weak (Lezgi kːakːa 'egg' q.v.).

NCED: 906. Distribution: According to [NCED], two phonetically similar roots for 'egg' enter into competition here. Both demonstrate rather irregular reflexes of assimilative or dissimilative nature.

The first one is reconstructed as *qːVlVqː in [NCED: 906]. This stem means 'egg' in Udi, on the one hand, and Rutul and Aghul, on the other. In the rest of Lezgian, the root has been lost.

The second one is reconstructed as *qʼoloqʼ in [NCED: 932]. This stem means 'egg' in Tsakhur (qʼuqʼ), 'testiculus' in Budukh, Rutul and Tabasaran (these three forms have only been found in [NCED]), 'fried eggs' in Vartashen Udi.

In three languages, both of the roots have survived. The reflexes are opposed as follows:

It should be noted, however, that Vartashen Udi qːˤaqːapun is morphologically obscure (-pun is a unique suffix) and too irregular phonetically (normally Lezgian *qʼ yields a zero reflex in Udi). It seems better to separate the Udi form from these roots: we prefer to treat qːˤaqːapun as a word of unknown origin.

If so, the descendants of the hypothetical *qʼoloqʼ mean 'testiculus' in all three Nuclear Lezgian subbranches, but 'egg' in Tsakhur. The semantic derivation 'testiculus' > 'egg' is extremely rare cross-linguistically; thus, Tsakhur qʼuqʼ would rather seem to originate from *qːVlVqː 'egg', but it must have been influenced by *qʼoloqʼ. The second solution is to unite all the aforementioned forms (excepting the Udi 'fried eggs') under one proto-root *QVlVQ 'egg' with very irregular reflexes. If so, in Proto-Nuclear Lezgian, *QVlVQ divided into two phonetic shapes - one retained the meaning 'egg', the other acquired the meaning 'testiculus' (the shift 'egg' > 'testiculus' is normal).

It is also likely that the discussed words for 'egg' have been influenced by various onomatopoeic forms for hen cackling, cf., e.g., Budukh qʼaɢɨldamˈi 'cackling, clucking' [Meylanova 1984: 94], etc.

In Proto-Tabasaran and Lezgi, 'egg' is expressed by *kːakːay [NCED: 429], not observed in other languages. The primary meaning of this root is unclear. It cannot be posited as the Proto-East Lezgian term for 'egg', since the Aghul language retains *qːVlVqː for this meaning. In fact, however, both Khiv Tabasaran gugˈu and Lezgi kːakːˈa may represent independent introductions of onomatopeic nature.

In Northern Tabasaran, two recent compounds are attested with the meaning 'egg', both with *paʡ 'hen' [NCED: 865] as the first element (one of them literally means 'white of hen').

In South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh), the obscure forms kusuntʼ ~ kusχuntʼ ~ kusxud 'egg' are attested. Their first element kus- also looks similar to the word for 'hen'.

Superseded with loanwords in Archi (< Lak) and some Tabasaran dialects (< Azerbaijani).

Shaumyan 1941: 147. Specified as 'fat (in general)'. It should be noted that in [Suleymanov 2003: 91], Tpig yaʁ is glossed as 'lube, machine oil' (there is no generic term for 'fat' in [Suleymanov 2003]).

We reconstruct Proto-Aghul maw as 'fat (in general)' (retained in some non-Koshan dialects) and yaχ as specific 'fat on meat' (lost in Koshan).

The original generic meaning of maw is suggested by the external Lezgian comparison. In Koshan (Burshag) maw was superseded with ħul under the influence of the neighboring Tabasaran language, where the same shift occurred. The exact proto-meaning of ħul cannot be reconstructed with certainty - ‘a k. of fat’. Cf. also Keren Aghul (Richa) ħal, Gequn Aghul (Burkikhan) ħel quoted in [NCED: 1081] as 'fat' without semantic specifications (apparently based on the unpublished field records of the MSU expedition, cf. [NCED: 13]).

Aghul forms of the shape yaχ, yaχʷ, yaʁ seem inherited (thus in [NCED: 948]), but influenced on the part of the basic Azerbaijani term yaɣ 'fat (in general)'. This concerns both phonetics (the voiced fricative in Proper Aghul yaʁ) and semantics: the shift from 'fat on meat' to the generic meaning 'fat' in Keren Aghul (Usug) and Proper Aghul (Tpig).

The form maqʼ / maʔ must be posited as the Proto-Lezgi term for 'fat'.

Proto-Lezgian:*maʔˤ 2

NCED: 794. Distribution: Retained as the generic term for 'fat' in Archi, on the one hand, and in most of the Nuclear Lezgian lects, on the other. External North Caucasian comparison also confirms such a semantic reconstruction for Proto-Lezgian *maʔˤ.

In Udi, *maʔˤ has been lost, superseded by *čʼːäˤm [NCED: 624], whose original meaning was 'butter', as proven by both the Nuclear Lezgian and external North Caucasian cognates, as well as the synchronic Udi polysemy 'fat / butter'.

In Keren Aghul (Usug) and Aghul proper, *maʔˤ shifted to the specific meaning 'visceral fat, suet', superseded as the generic term by *yimχː [NCED: 948]. The original Proto-Lezgian meaning of *yimχː is likely to have been 'butterfat' vel sim. (cf. its Archi and South Lezgian cognates with the meanings 'butter' and 'milk'), but for Proto-Aghul *yimχː can be reconstructed with the specific meaning 'fat on meat'.

Schiefner 1863: 15, 84; Starchevskiy 1891: 505. It is not specified which 'feather' is meant (anatomic term or pen), but this word is distinct from qːaläm-uχ 'feather pen' [Schiefner 1863: 72] (< Azerbaijani gäläm 'id.', ultimately from Arabic qalam).

A second Vartashen term for 'feather', which is currently used in the Zinobiani (Oktomberi) village, is posposkːal [Fähnrich 1999: 26], confirmed by Yu. Lander's field records on 2011. In [Gukasyan 1974: 189] and [Mobili 2010: 235], however, this word is explained as a kind of wild plant (Azerbaijani: xumxuma, Russian: перчий).

In [Schulze 2001: 312] the word qːänäd 'wing; feather' is quoted (an Azerbaijani loanword, see notes on Nidzh Udi), although in Bežanovs' text it is attested only with the meaning 'wing'.

Common Udi notes:

In the light of Lezgian comparanda, it is Vartashen kuk that has a better chance to have been the Proto-Udi term for 'feather'. In this case, it is necessary to postulate the meaning shift 'tassel' > 'feather' in Nidzh maǯa and similarly 'a k. of plant' > 'feather' in Vartashen posposkːal.

Distinct from pisi {писи}, which is glossed in [Meylanova 1984: 119, 230] as 'feather, small feather' (repeated in [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 216] as a basic term for 'feather'), but Meylanova's examples rather suggest the specific meaning 'down': "downy pillow", "down appears on chickens".

From the distributive viewpoint it seems slightly more natural to assume that the Proto-Tsakhur term for 'feather' was wɨsɨn (~ wusun), which is retained both in the Takh and Gelmets dialectal groups, whereas kuk-ra is an innovation of some Tsakh dialects (Tsakhur-Kum, Mukhakh-Sabunchi & Suvagil) and "transitional" Mikik. External Lezgian etymology, however, speaks in favor of kuk-ra; in turn, wɨsɨn seems to be an interdialectal innovation of unclear origin.

A second term is pʼeru {пIеру}, glossed simply as 'feather' in [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 211, 372], but we suspect that pʼeru rather means 'feather pen', borrowed from Russian pʸerˈo 'feather (anatomic); feather pen'.

An unclear situation. Formally, the external comparison (cf. the Lezgi suffixed cognate cʼak-ul 'feather') could suggest that cːikʷ ~ zikʷ ~ zük ~ zik is to be reconstructed with polysemy: 'feather / down' for Proto-Tabasaran. This polysemy was retained in some Southern subdialects (Kondik, Tinit), but reduced to 'down' in Northern Tabasaran as well as in some Southern subdialects (Khiv). Out of several new words for 'feather', Northern χil 'feather' apparently goes back to the local meaning 'wing' [NCED: 1070], Dyubek ʁik is etymologically obscure, for Khiv cʼupˈur see below.

But in the Fiy dialect of the Samur group: cʼuw-ur with polysemy: 'feather; down' [Meylanova 1964: 394].

An unclear situation, with two terms in competition: cʼap-ˈur (in the Kyuri and Samur dialectal groups) vs. cʼak-ˈul (Samur). Both words are present in Literary Lezgi. The available dialectal data are too scant for a full-fledged distributive analysis, but cʼap-ˈur seems more preferable from the etymological point of view: cf. Aghul *pincʼʷ 'feather', Tabasaran (Khiv) cʼup-ˈur 'feather' q.v.

The rare substantive suffix with generic semantics -al is both denominal [Haspelmath 1993: 107] and deverbal [Gaydarov et al. 2009: 131]. Final -ur looks like a fossilized plural exponent, but it must be noted that synchronic Lezgi plural suffixes are either -ar or -er [Haspelmath 1993: 71; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 291].

Proto-Lezgian:*kʷik ~ *kʷimk 2

NCED: 707. Distribution: An unstable word, often superseded by etymologically obscure forms or loans. Distributively the best candidate for the Proto-Lezgian term 'feather' is *kʷi(m)k. It has been retained with the meaning 'feather' in Vartashen Udi, on the one hand, and in two Nuclear Lezgian languages (Kryts and Tsakhur), on the other, having been lost in the rest of languages.

The modern Vartashen Udi word for 'feather' is, however, posposkːal, which primarily denotes a kind of plant. In Nidzh Udi, *kʷi(m)k was superseded with the etymologically unclear word maǯa, whose original Proto-Udi meaning is likely to have been 'tassel, bunch'.

In Archi, the root *cːal [NCED: 1090] with polysemy 'wing / feather' is observed. This root is isolated within Lezgian, but if the North Caucasian etymology, proposed in [NCED], is correct, this implies the shift 'fist' > 'wing' > 'feather' in Archi.

In some Tsakhur dialects (Mishlesh, Gelmets), 'feather' is expressed by the etymologically isolated root *wɨs- (~ -o-) [NCED: 1058]. In Mikik Tsakhur, the neologism 'bird's hair' is also attested for 'feather'.

In Rutul, the etymologically obscure form maqˤaq 'feather' occurs.

As for East Lezgian (Aghul, Tabasaran, Lezgi), the best solution here is to postulate *pincʼʷ [LEDb: #145] as the Proto-East Lezgian root for 'feather' (however, without any further etymology). It has been retained in Aghul, Southern Tabasaran (Khiv), Lezgi (Gyune, Yarki, Fiy). In Northern Tabasaran (Khanag, Khyuryuk), *pincʼʷ was superseded by *χäla (~ -lː-)[NCED: 1070], whose local meaning could be 'wing' (thus 'wing' > 'feather'). On the contrary, in Southern Tabasaran (Kondik, Tinit) and some Lezgi dialects (Akhty, Literary Lezgi), the root *cʼːämk / *kämcʼː 'down' [NCED: 1091] has acquired the meaning 'feather' (sometimes with synchronic polysemy 'feather / down').

Out of a number of etymologically obscure terms for 'feather', attested in Lezgian lects, in several cases the source of borrowing can be established: Budukh (< Azerbaijani), Borch-Khnov Rutul (< Azerbaijani), Ixrek Rutul (< Lak?).

Semantics and structure: Primary substantival root. The oblique stems are *cʼoyɨ- and *cʼo(y)-rV- (functional difference is unclear, but the latter is attested in Udi, Archi and Nuclear Lezgian, therefore, is more likely to represent an archaism).

An unclear situation. Upon first sight, čičʼ ~ čečʼ (retained in both Northern and Southern Tabasaran) can safely be reconstructed as the Proto-Tabasaran term for 'fish'. The external comparison could confirm this solution, since Tabasaran čičʼ etymologically corresponds to Aghul (the closest relative of Tabasaran) čʼekʼ 'fish' < Lezgian *čʼeƛʼ [NCED: 333].

On the other hand, local Southern χˤad 'fish' (characteristic of the Eteg group of subdialects [Genko 2005: 223], but also having penetrated in Literary Tabasaran) originates from the best candidate for the status of the Proto-Lezgian term for 'fish': Lezgian *χˤːanː [NCED: 1078]. We suppose that Southern χˤad goes back to the Proto-Tabasaran word for 'fish', whereas the widespread Tabasaran term čičʼ ~ čečʼ 'fish' reflects later influence on the part of the neighboring Aghul language (this isogloss did not affect the Eteg group of Tabasaran subdialects, which is the most remote from the Aghul area). In such a case the original Proto-Tabasaran meaning of čičʼ ~ čečʼ could be 'locust', as proved by the Northern Tabasaran polysemy.

In some subdialects, inherited forms tend to be superseded with the borrowing from Azerbaijani balɨg, dialectal (e.g., Quba) baluɣ 'fish'. Northern Tabasaran balurχː is a corruption of the same Azerbaijani word, although the phonetic development is unclear.

NCED: 1078. Distribution: An unstable term, superseded by the Azerbaijani loanword in many Nuclear Lezgian lects.

From the distributive point of view, three roots enter into competition.

1) *χːˤanː [NCED: 1078]. This root is retained in several Nuclear Lezgian languages: Proto-Rutul (attested in Shinaz), Proto-Tabasaran (attested in Eteg), Proto-Lezgi (attested in Gyune). Since *χːˤanː is descended from the best candidate for the status of the general North Caucasian term for 'fish', we reconstruct this Lezgian root with the meaning 'fish'.

2) *χˤawχay [LEDb: #262]. This root denotes 'fish' in Archi, but 'snail' in Tabasaran; no further etymology. In Proto-Lezgian, it could have denoted 'snail' vel sim.

3) *čʷiˤlä- [NCED: 532]. This root denotes 'fish' in Udi, but 'green', 'blue' and 'wet' in Nuclear Lezgian. It can actually be considered the best candidate for Proto-Lezgian 'green' (the shift 'green, blue' > 'fish' seems more natural than vice versa).

A fourth inherited root, also attested with the meaning 'fish', is *čʼeƛʼ [NCED: 333] (the variant *čʼeƛʼː is apparently unnecessary, because dialectal fluctuations in Aghul and Kryts seem local and late). It means 'fish' in Aghul and, secondarily, in the neighboring Tabasaran dialects (the original Proto-Tabasaran meaning of this root was, quite likely, 'locust'). Its suffixed Kryts cognate means 'green', whereas external North Caucasian comparanda suggest the meaning 'lizard' or 'frog'. An unclear situation. Maybe the Proto-Lezgian meaning of *čʼeƛʼ was indeed 'a k. of reptile' with a later shift to 'green' in Kryts, 'fish' in Aghul and 'locust' in Tabasaran.

Ibragimov 1990: 197. Imperfect stem. Labialization of χʷ is quite unclear. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 482], the future stem is quoted as alʸ=iχ-: alʸ=i-w-χ-oz {аливхоз} (this form of the class 3 does not permit to distinguish between χ and χʷ).

The best candidate seems the root *ʔiχV [NCED: 582], which means 'to fly' in two Nuclear Lezgian languages: Tsakhur, Tabasaran, but got lost in the rest of the lects. External North Caucasian comparison may confirm the Proto-Lezgian reconstruction *ʔiχV 'to fly'.

The second candidate is the expressive root *pVr- [NCED: 874]. It is encountered as part of complex verbs in two outliers: Udi ('to fly') and Archi ('to stream, fly (of flag)'; the generic meaning 'to fly' is expressed by the Avar loanword). Cf. also Nuclear Lezgian expressions for 'to fly up, take wing': Budukh 'to make pɨr-pɨr', Tabasaran 'to make pʼurr', Lezgi 'to make purr', which should rather be analyzed as onomatopoeic. Lezgian *pVr- also possesses external North Caucasian comparanda with the meaning 'to fly', although verbs of the shape pVr are rather frequently attested as expressions for 'to fly' among the world's languages, and normally it is impossible to discriminate between etymological cognates and new onomatopoeic formations. For this reason we prefer to exclude Lezgian *pVr- from the list.

In Rutul, the old root was superseded with *ʔäča-, whose Lezgian cognates, discussed in [NCED: 283], are semantically dubious, but the original Proto-Rutul meaning of this root should be 'to jump', judging by the synchronic Rutul polysemy 'to fly / to jump' (i.e. 'to jump' > 'to fly up' > 'to fly').

In Aghul dialects, the meaning 'to fly' is expressed by various prefixed roots with the original meanings 'to go' or 'to run' (the full collocation 'to go across the sky' = 'to fly' is also attested).

In Lezgi, two collocations for 'to fly' coexist: 'to give wing' and 'to go across the sky'.

There exists a separate specific Nidzh term for 'foot': čːil {чIил} 'foot' [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 213] (glossed as 'foot'), [Gukasyan 1974: 256] (glossed as Russian 'нога (i.e. leg with foot)'; missing from the main section of the dictionary). The origin of čːil is unclear.

Common Udi *tur 'leg / foot / paw'. Schulze's suspicions [Schulze 2001: 325] that Udi tur could be a Georgian loanword are unjustified not only from a sociolinguistic point of view, but also factologically (there is, in fact, no such word as Old Georgian tur 'foot').

Caucasian Albanian: tur 'foot' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-18]. Distinct from ʕeqal 'leg' or more specifically 'shank' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-22] ("Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other").

NCED: 455. Distribution: First of all, it must be noted that the attested basic terms display the polysemy 'foot / leg' in all languages, except for Caucasian Albanian (the latter may be due to chance); the same polysemy should be reconstructed for Proto-Lezgian.

Three Lezgian roots are equal candidates for the status of the Proto-Lezgian term for 'foot / leg' from the distributive point of view: (1) *ya(m)tur [NCED: 674], meaning 'foot / leg' in Udi; (2) *ʔaqː [NCED: 244], meaning 'foot / leg' in Archi; (3) *qːel [NCED: 455], meaning 'foot / leg' in South and West Lezgian.

Out of these, *ya(m)tur denotes 'thigh, hip' in Nuclear Lezgian, and its external North Caucasian comparanda also point to the meaning 'thigh, hip' [NCED: 674]. Thus, it is natural to posit *ya(m)tur as the Proto-Lezgian root for 'thigh, hip' and assume the shift 'thigh, hip' > 'foot / leg' in the Udi branch (in Caucasian Albanian this root is attested for 'foot').

The second root, *ʔaqː [NCED: 244], is attested with the polysemy 'leg (of human) / foot (of human) / hind leg (of animal)' in Archi and as narrower 'hind leg (of animal)' in some Nuclear Lezgian lects. The most economic solution is to reconstruct its Proto-Lezgian meaning as 'hind leg (of animal)' (with further developments in Archi).

The third competing root is *qːel [NCED: 455], which is retained in South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh) and West Lezgian (Tsakhur, Rutul), where it means 'foot / leg'. Distributively this should be posited as the Proto-Nuclear Lezgian term for 'foot / leg', and there is no counter evidence for the same semantic reconstruction on the Proto-Lezgian level.

In East Lezgian, *qːel was probably superseded with other roots. In Aghul and Tabasaran, 'foot / leg' is expressed by *läk [NCED: 755], whose original Proto-Lezgian meaning is likely to have been 'leg bone' (see notes on 'bone'). In Lezgi, the root *kʼʷarč [NCED: 733] is used for 'foot / leg'; the original meaning of *kʼʷarč is not entirely clear, but it could be 'heel, sole' (shifted to 'hoof' in Rutul-Tsakhur), as suggested by the external North Caucasian comparanda.

For the Akhty dialect (Khlyut), inherited acʼˈa-y is documented only in the meaning 'satiated' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 241].

Proto-Lezgian:*hˤacʼɨ- 1

NCED: 525. Distribution: One of the most stable Lezgian roots, retained in its basic meaning in all Lezgian lects. The root is originally verbal - 'to be full, to fill (intrans.)'. In all the languages, the adjectival meaning 'full' is expressed by participial formations. Just like the plain verb 'to be full', this root has survived in Archi and the most Nuclear Lezgian languages, but has been lost in Udi and Kryts (where 'to fill (trans.)' is a secondary factitive formation from 'full').

This basic adjective displays the polysemy 'full / satiated' in all or almost all the languages; the same polysemy 'to be full / to be satiated' should be reconstructed for the Proto-Lezgian verb (the Proto-Lezgian development 'full' > 'satiated'). In some Nuclear Lezgian lects the development 'full' > 'thick' is attested as well (Budukh, Tsakhur, Aghul).

Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular, although reconstruction of the initial hˤ- is uncertain (Kryts ʕ- could actually be an old prefix with general semantics, the Archi vowel length can be unrelated). Thus, the reconstruction *acʼɨ- is also probable. In Caucasian Albanian-Udi, the fossilized class prefix b- occurs.

Semantics and structure: Primary verbal root with polysemy 'to be full / to be satiated'.

As is traditionally suggested (e.g., [Schulze 2005: 542 (3.4.2.1 #24)]) and now proven by the Caucasian Albanian data, Udi tad- is to be analyzed as *ta=d- with the preverb ta- 'thither' and the old root d- 'to give'. The latter lost its meaning in modern Udi and currently only functions as a light verb with general semantics [Schulze 2005: 572 ff. (3.4.2.2 #28 ff.)]. In all likelihood, Udi d- goes back to *day- < Proto-Caucasian Albanian-Udi *daʁ- (with the shift ʁ > 0/y in the intervocalic position before front vowels or before consonants), which was further reanalyzed as *d-a- and levelled up across the paradigm. Quite a different analysis has tentatively been proposed in [NCED: 1034] (whose authors were naturally not aware of the Caucasian Albanian data): Udi ta-d- with the hypothetical root ta- 'to give', lacking East Caucasian comparanda.

Note also that in Caucasian Albanian the root of the present stem 'to give' is luʁ-, but it did not survive in modern Udi (as opposed to Caucasian Albanian, the Udi present forms are apparently secondary, originating from the infinitive; [Maisak 2008b: 164 ff.; Maisak 2008a: 115]).

Suppletive paradigm: class=w=ɨ=l=cʼ-a-r- [imperf.] / class=w-ɨ-r [perf.] / class=w-i [imv.]. It must be noted that according to [Ibragimov 1978: 85], the modern imperative form is class=iy, where the original root consonant -w- was reanalyzed as the class 3 exponent. In [Dirr 1912], the imperfective and perfective stems are quoted with the assimilated sequence -wu- instead of -wɨ-.

Suppletive paradigm: class=ɨ=r=cʼ-ä-r- [imperf.] / class=w-ɨ-r [perf.] / class=iy [imv.]. In [Ibragimov 1978], the imperf. stem is quoted with regular -a- instead of -ä-. The imperative form is a result of secondary reanalysis, see notes on Mukhad Rutul.

The suppletive paradigms generally coincide in all dialects. Note the rare imperfective infix -l- in Mukhad and Luchek. Initial w= in the imperfective stem (Mukhad, Luchek) seems a rare (or unique) case of the prefix w= (cf. the same prefixal morpheme in the Kryts imperfective stem).

Historically, a suppletive verb with two stems: l=icʼ- [imperf.] / TV=ʔuɣ- [perf.]. This paradigm was totally levelled in Southern Tabasaran and is being currently eliminated in the Northern dialect. The manifold Northern forms with ɣ and w (< ɣ) illustrate the complicated reflection of Proto-Lezgian *ƛː depending on the position, see [NCED: 134].

This root has survived as the basic equivalent for 'to give' in all Lezgian lects. In Caucasian Albanian and especially in modern Udi, the reflexes of *ʔiƛːɨ- are not fully transparent. Following [Schulze 2005: 542 (3.4.2.1 #24); Gippert et al. 2008: II-71], we analyze the Proto-Caucasian Albanian-Udi paradigm *luʁ- [imperf.] / *daʁ- [perf.] 'to give' as *lu=ʁ- / *da=ʁ-, where the original root *ʁ- is modified by two unique prefixes lu= and da= (at least for *lu=ʁ- there is an interesting comparandum in Khinalug: lä=kʼʷi 'to give'; lä= is the Khinalug preverb 'from the speaker'). Due to phonetic mutations and morphological levellings, in modern Udi the paradigm *lu=ʁ- / *da=ʁ- has been transformed into a unified stem tad-, historically ta=d-, where ta= is the rare prefix 'thither'.

In Proto-Nuclear Lezgian, the paradigm became suppletive, with the additional root *ʔicʼa- involved: *ʔicʼa- [imperf.] / *ʔiƛːɨ- [perf.]. The original meaning of *ʔicʼa- is not clear; external North Caucasian comparison suggests something like 'to compensate' [NCED: 626]. It must be noted that in Tsakhur, Lezgi and some Tabasaran dialects, this suppletive paradigm was levelled backwards in favor of the root *ʔiƛːɨ-.

Final -n in qisˈe-n ~ qsa-n is an adjectival suffix, see [Gaydarov et al. 2009: 139 f.]; historically it is a genitive exponent that modifies the substantive stem.

Proto-Lezgian:*yukːɨ- 6

NCED: 643. Distribution: A highly unstable word; the Proto-Lezgian term cannot be reconstructed with certainty. The root *yukːɨ- [NCED: 643] denotes 'good' in Tsakhur and 'right (spatial)' in Shinaz Rutul (according to [NCED: 643], based on the unpublished MSU recordings), having been lost in the rest of Lezgian. We prefer *yukːɨ- as the Proto-Lezgian equivalent for 'good' for two reasons. First, it finds reliable North Caucasian cognates with the meaning 'good'. Second, the Caucasian Albanian form ey could originate from *yukːɨ-, if we assume the development *-kː- > -y-, as in modern Nidzh Udi (but not in Proto-Udi) [NCED: 125]. The latter argument is, however, weak, since Caucasian Albanian historical phonetics requires additional investigation.

In Rutul, the meaning 'good' is expressed by the root *HVχːʷV [NCED: 620], whose original meaning must have been something like 'kind, beautiful' (this follows from its cognates in other Lezgian languages: 'kind' in Archi, 'handsome, beautiful' in Aghul).

Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 235; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 675. In [NCED: 333] the variant čʼuk-nu is also quoted. The suffix -nV is attested in some other nominal stems, but its synchronic semantics and function are unclear.

It is unclear how the Proto-Tsakhur term for 'green' should be reconstructed. Tsakhur-Kum kʼatlʸe-n and literary kʼatɨlʸe-n can represent an archaism, because the development 'wet' > 'green' is attested cross-linguistically, whereas 'green' > 'wet' seems less normal (in this case čiˤwa-n is the Proto-Tsakhur word for 'wet'). On the other hand, kʼatlʸe-n and kʼatɨlʸe-n are isolated and etymologically obscure forms; therefore, they could reflect a loanword of unknown origin.

NCED: 532. Distribution: An unstable word. Several equivalent (from the distributional point of view) candidates enter into competition. Out of these, we choose *čʷiˤlä- [NCED: 532] as the most likely Proto-Lezgian root for 'green'. It retains the basic meaning 'green' in West Lezgian (Tsakhur, Rutul). Note the polysemy 'green / wet' in Tsakhur (implying a recent shift 'green' > 'wet'). In Udi, *čʷiˤlä- has produced the basic term for 'fish' (see notes on 'fish'). In Budukh, *čʷiˤlä- has shifted to the meaning 'dim, muddy'; in Aghul, to the meaning 'blue'. An important advantage of *čʷiˤlä- over its competitors is that *čʷiˤlä- possesses good North Caucasian cognates with the meaning 'green'.

In archaic Udi, dχi 'green' and däy 'green / blue' are likely to have been derived from the verbal root *ʔäɬar- 'to be wet, soaked' [NCED: 277]. Note the additional shift of däy to 'unripe; raw' in Nidzh Udi.

In Kryts, 'green' is a suffixal derivation from the root *čʼeƛʼ [NCED: 333], whose original meaning is likely to have been 'a k. of reptile', see notes on 'fish'.

In Aghul and Lezgi (this could be either a Proto-East Lezgian feature or a late areal isogloss) 'green' is derived from the substantive *qːac: (oblique *qːacːɨ-) [NCED: 464], whose original Proto-Lezgian or at least Proto-East Lezgian meaning is unclear: in Aghul, it denotes 'green color; green dye; green yarn', but specifically 'corn shoots' in Lezgi, whereas external North Caucasian comparison suggests the initial meaning 'dirt'.

In Tabasaran, the old root was superseded with *čirV- [NCED: 554], which originally denoted 'a k. of light color' (cf. its meaning 'blond, red-haired' in Aghul and 'variegated', 'yellow', 'grey' and so on in other groups of the North Caucasian family).

NCED: 378. Distribution: This root is retained as the basic expression for 'head hair / a single hair' in Archi, on the one hand, and in all Nuclear Lezgian lects, on the other. Apparently in all the aforementioned languages, this word also denotes 'human body hair'. The polysemy 'human hair / goat's fur' is either a Proto-Nuclear Lezgian feature or a late areal isogloss. External North Caucasian comparison confirms *čʼaˤr as the Proto-Lezgian term for 'head hair'.

In Udi, *čʼaˤr was superseded with *pVpːV-, whose original meaning was something like 'soft, fluffy hair' [NCED: 865]. On the contrary, in Caucasian Albanian, 'hair' is expressed by the etymologically obscure stem ikuˤ.

Distinct from aˤm, which is translated as 'wing; shoulder; side' in [Schiefner 1863: 76] and incorrectly as 'arm; pole, thills; door wing' in [Schulze 2001: 251] (in fact, the meaning 'arm' is unattested in [Bezhanov & Bezhanov 1902], the only anatomic meaning of aˤm attested in this source is 'shoulder').

Note also that in [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 204, 207] it is kul which is proposed both for 'hand' and 'arm' (χol is not quoted in [Comrie & Khalilov 2010] at all).

Browsing through available texts clearly suggests that kul is the default term for 'hand' in Archi (e.g., "Don't touch it with your hand" [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 36] and so on). The only found context for 'arm' contains the word χol: "I have broken an arm (χol) and leg" [Dirr 1908: 126].

According to [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 26], another word for 'hand' is kɨl {кыл} with polysemy: 'arm / hand / sleeve / handle'. An example in [Meylanova 1984: 80] confirms the meaning 'hand' for kɨl: "to take one's hand", literally "getting hand in hand". It seems, however, that kɨl is a statistically less frequent expression for 'hand' than χab. Cf. several examples for χab 'hand' in [Meylanova 1984: 143] as well as in other sources, e.g., "The stick hurt my hand" [Talibov 2007: 76], "The human right hand is bigger/stronger/longer than the left one" [Talibov 2007: 97, 118, 185], "Mother pulled her child's hand" [Talibov 2007: 181], "A human looks at the face, an animal looks at the hand" [Talibov 2007: 276], "Hand of an arrogant man creates nothing" [Talibov 2007: 283].

In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 204, 207], χab is erroneously quoted as 'arm', whereas 'hand' is erroneously glossed by two "synonyms": kʼurkʼučʼ and kɨl. In fact kʼurkʼučʼ means 'brush, tassel' [Meylanova 1984: 99], and the underlying expression of Comrie & Khalilov's gloss "kʼurkʼučʼ, kɨl" was apparently a genitive construction 'tassel of arm' - a mechanical translation of Russian кисть руки 'tassel of arm', which is the designation of 'hand' in scientific Russian.

In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 207], 'hand' is quoted as patak {патак} - an error for pataχˤ {паIтах} or pataqˤ {паIтахъ} (cf. data from other dialects). Apparently the same term is reflected as partʸaqˤ {паIртяхъ} (sic!) 'paw' in [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 285].

There also exists a more specific term for 'hand': gap [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 27], which etymologically corresponds to the words for 'palm of hand' in some other Aghul dialects: Gequn gap, Fite gap [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 28]. External Lezgian etymology could confirm that 'palm of hand' is the primary meaning of this word. In Burshag, the meaning 'palm of hand' is expressed analytically as kːalan yiqʼˤ, literally 'back (anatomic) of kːal' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 28].

NCED: 706. Distribution: There are three main roots attested with the meaning 'hand' in Lezgian languages. The data can be summarized as follows:

'HAND'

Udi

Archi

Kryts

Budukh

Tsakhur

Rutul

Aghul

Tabasaran

Lezgi

*kʷil [NCED: 706]

hand/arm

hand

hand/arm

arm / hand / sleeve / handle

elbow (suffixed)

branch, cluster

twig, vine

branch, cluster

*χːɨl [NCED: 895]

arm

hand / arm

hand / arm

hand / arm

hand / arm

hand / arm

*mːaχː [NCED: 819]

handful / palm of hand

hand/arm

hand

armful

armful

handful

Although there can hardly be any doubt about *kʷil as the main Proto-Lezgian root for 'hand', the exact details are not entirely clear.

The easiest solution is to propose the lexical opposition 'hand' / 'arm' for Proto-Lezgian, despite the fact that such an opposition is atypical for the attested Lezgian lects and that the reconstructed syncretism 'foot / leg' (see notes on 'foot') could contradict the opposition 'hand' / 'arm'. The aforementioned roots can be reconstructed with the following meanings:

1) *kʷil 'hand';

2) *χːɨl 'arm';

3) *mːaχː (metathesized *χːamː in Proto-Nuclear Lezgian) 'handful'.

The root *χːɨl was lost in Udi, where *kʷil acquired the additional meaning 'arm' ('hand' > 'arm'); in Caucasian Albanian, *kʷil denotes 'hand', but no word for 'arm' is attested.

In the second outlier, Archi, the opposition *kʷil 'hand' / *χːɨl 'arm' is retained (the third root *mːaχː was lost).

Apparently, the opposition *kʷil 'hand' / *χːɨl 'arm' / *χːamː 'handful' was still retained in Proto-Nuclear Lezgian as well, but was subsequently eliminated in individual subgroups in different ways.

In Proto-South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh), *kʷil acquired the additional meaning 'arm' ('hand' > 'arm'), whereas the old root for 'arm', *χːɨl, got lost - the same process as in the Udi branch. The root *χːamː in the meaning 'hand' seems to have been a relatively recent introduction ('handful' > 'hand'); we suppose that it is an areal isogloss, which is currently affecting Kryts and Budukh dialects. It is very likely that the new term *χːamː 'hand' tends to completely supersede the old term *kʷil in modern Kryts and Budukh. As a result, *χːamː acquires the additional meaning 'arm' ('hand' > 'arm'). Note also the development 'arm / hand' > 'sleeve' and 'arm / hand' > 'handle' in Budukh.

In Proto-West Lezgian (Tsakhur, Rutul) and Proto-East Lezgian (Aghul, Tabasaran, Lezgi), the old opposition *kʷil 'hand' / *χːɨl 'arm' was eliminated in favor of the latter root, i.e., *χːɨl started to denote 'hand / arm' ('arm' > 'hand'). It must be noted, however, that the tree topology and certain semantic shifts (for which see below) suggest that such an elimination was an independent development in Proto-West Lezgian and Proto-East Lezgian or, rather, an areal isogloss, which affected both protolanguages.

The old root *kʷil 'hand' survived in West Lezgian as the suffixed form 'elbow' (Rutul); such a semantic shift seems, however, somewhat surprising. The anatomic semantics of *kʷil was lost in Proto-East Lezgian, where this root acquired the meaning 'branch, cluster' (with the further shift > 'twig, vine' in Tabasaran).

External North Caucasian comparison confirms the Proto-Lezgian reconstructions *kʷil 'hand' [NCED: 706] and *mːaχː 'handful' [NCED: 819]. As for Proto-Lezgian *χːɨl 'arm', its Lak cognate denotes 'wing' [NCED: 896]; it seems that typologically the semantic shift between 'arm' and 'wing' can occur in both directions.

Finally, some peculiarities should be noted. In Shinaz Rutul and Koshan Aghul, 'hand' can be expressed by the root *kːap ~ *kːapː, whose Proto-Lezgian meaning is likely to have been 'palm of hand' [NCED: 298]. In Tsakhur and Rutul dialects, the words for 'paw' can acquire the specific meaning 'hand'. Udi köyi ~ koy 'sleeve' provides an additional instance for the development 'hand / arm' > 'sleeve'.

NCED: 1041. Distribution: This stem is attested as the basic term in Caucasian Albanian-Udi, on the one hand, and in all Nuclear Lezgian languages, on the other. The locative form of *woƛʼul is also retained as the Archi adverb 'under one's head'.

In Archi, *woƛʼul was superseded by *kʷɨltʼ- ~ *kʼʷɨlt- [NCED: 695], which is a good candidate for the status of the Proto-Lezgian term for 'temple'. This word means 'temple' or 'cheek' in Nuclear Lezgian (thus 'temple' > 'cheek'); external North Caucasian comparison could also point to the meaning 'temple'.

Reconstruction shape: Basic correspondences seem regular, except for the sporadic syncope of the first syllable in some languages.

Semantics and structure: Primary substantive root. Historically *woƛʼu-l with the common nominal l-suffix. If Udi ber 'pillow' does indeed originate from *woƛʼV-rV (thus in [NCED: 1041]), the suffix -l can be singled out on the Proto-Lezgian level.

Common Udi *i-bak-esun; derived from the root i plus the light verb -bak- 'to be(come)' [Schulze 2005: 561 f. (3.4.2.2 #10); Schulze-Fürhoff 1994: 474]. The Udi verb corresponds to Caucasian Albanian ih-esun 'to hear'. Both CA ih and Udi i go back to Proto-Caucasian Albanian-Udi *iχ(i)- with the shift χ > h > 0 in the intervocalic position before front vowels or before consonants. The Udi morpheme i is quoted as a separate word with the meaning 'hearing, ability to hear (Russian: слух)' in [Gukasyan 1974: 127; Mobili 2010: 152], although it is unclear whether this i can function as an independent item or if it has been extracted from the verb 'to hear' by Gukasyan.

All the dialects demonstrate an analytic construction with un 'sound' and an auxiliary verb. In Mukhad this verb is the common 'to become' ('sound happens to X'), whereas the meanings of Ixrek y=ɨχˤ- and Luchek ečʼʷ- are unknown. Ixrek y=ɨχˤ- formally coincides with the verb y=ɨχˤ- 'to strike, hit' (see notes on 'to kill'), where y= is a prefix with general semantics, but the semantics of hearing is strange in this case; on the other hand, Ixrek y=ɨχˤ- may consist of the class 4 exponent y= attached to the verb ɨχˤ- '?'.

Initial q= in the verbs for 'to listen' is a prefix with general semantics [Ibragimov 1978: 95; Alekseev 1994a: 227; Makhmudova 2001: 165]. Mukhad q=ac-u- and Ixrek q=äs-u-, Luchek q=as-ɨ- are obviously related (for the deaffricativization in Rutul dialects cf. [NCED: 138], although this problem still awaits more detailed research). The Mukhad and Ixrek data point to labialized *cʷ, thus the link between this Rutul root and Proto-Lezgian *ʔasV 'to be silent' seems unlikely, pace [NCED: 262].

Two verbs with the meaning 'to hear' enter into competition here: yik- (Northern Tabasaran, except for the Chuvek subdialect, which is located on the border between two dialects, see the map in [Alekseev & Shikhalieva 2003: 12]) and yex- (Southern Tabasaran). The external Lezgian comparison speaks in favour of Southern yex- as Proto-Tabasaran 'to hear', rather than Northern yik-.

NCED: 411. Distribution: This stem is retained as the basic verb for 'to hear' in Caucasian Albanian-Udi, on the one hand, and in some Nuclear Lezgian lects, on the other. More precisely, *ʔeɬ(ː)ɨ- is to be reconstructed as the Proto-Nuclear Lezgian verb 'to hear': it means 'to hear' in South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh), Tsakhur and Southern Tabasaran, but shifted to the meaning 'to keep silence' in Rutul. External North Caucasian comparison confirms the meaning 'to hear' for Proto-Lezgian *ʔeɬ(ː)ɨ-.

The second candidate is *ʔi(r)kɨ(r)- [NCED: 650], which means 'to hear' in Archi and, surprisingly, in Northern Tabasaran, but got lost in the rest of languages. The exact Proto-Lezgian meaning of this root cannot be established (it should be noted that some of its external North Caucasian cognates also demonstrate the meaning 'to hear'). The Tabasaran situation, when two main dialects possess different verbs for 'to hear' (*ʔeɬ(ː)ɨ- vs. *ʔi(r)kɨ(r)-) can only be explained as an independent semantic development *ʔi(r)kɨ(r)- '?' > 'to hear' in Archi and Northern Tabasaran.

In Rutul, Aghul, Lezgi, 'to hear' is expressed by analytic constructions 'sound happens to X' with different words for 'sound' and different auxiliary verbs. This is a late areal isogloss that affected the central part of the Lezgian territory.

Dzheiranishvili 1971: 205, 247; Schiefner 1863: 105; Schulze 2001: 301; Starchevskiy 1891: 506. The word is written with tense qː as {му̇kы̇нах} in [Bezhanov & Bezhanov 1902: Lk. 1.69], although this Bežanovs' form was mistranscribed with plain q in [Schulze 2001: 301] (with further speculations about such a deglottalization).

The sources vary in this case. Modern dictionaries [Gukasyan 1974: 157; Mobili 2010: 190] quote qːˤancː {къаънцI} as the Vartashen term for 'horn', whereas sources of the 19th century show muqːˤa. Apparently there has been a lexical replacement over the course of the last century (note that [Dzheiranishvili 1971] reflects the archaic norm). Vartashen qːˤancː originates from Lezgian *qːˤa[n]cʼ(a) 'hook' [NCED: 462]. We treat both words as synonyms.

NCED: 723. Distribution: This word has been retained in its basic meaning in all Nuclear Lezgian lects, but has been completely lost in both outliers (Udi, Archi). The following semantic shifts, reflected as synchronic polysemy, should be noted: 'corner, edge' (Tsakhur), 'woman plait; handle, grip' (Tabasaran).

A second candidate is *pːaˤlː [NCED: 285], which means 'horn / top of the head' in Archi and 'forehead' in Nuclear Lezgian. Since the shift 'top of the head' > 'horn' is typologically more normal than vice versa, we assume that the Proto-Archi meaning was 'top of the head' (correspondingly, the Proto-Lezgian meaning of *pːaˤlː should be 'top of the head' or 'forehead').

The Proto-Udi substantive 'horn' was derived from *meˤrƛ 'deer' [NCED: 300]. In modern Vartashen Udi, it was superseded with *qːˤa[n]cʼ(a), whose original Proto-Lezgian meaning was 'hook' [NCED: 462].

NCED: 1084. Distribution: Retained as the independent personal pronoun for the 1st p. sg. in all lects except for Borch-Khnov Rutul, where 'I' originates from the personal pronoun 'we (incl.)'.

Replacements: {'we (incl.)' > 'I'} (Borch-Khnov Rutul).

Reconstruction shape: Basic correspondences seem regular.

The absolutive form is to be reconstructed as *zo-n ~ *zo. The status of the suffix -n is unclear. It is attested in Archi and in most Nuclear Lezgian languages: South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh) and East Lezgian (Aghul, Lezgi; it must be noted that in Tabasaran *zo(-n) has not survived, having been levelled after the oblique stem). On the contrary, -n is absent from Caucasian Albanian-Udi and West Lezgian (Tsakhur, Rutul). Finally, Alyk Kryts shows synchronic doublets zi-n ~ zi. In all these cases the nasal suffix could be explained as influence on the part of the 2nd p. sg. pronoun *u̯o-n 'thou' q.v., although it must be noted that the external North Caucasian comparanda also demonstrate fluctuation between forms with and without -n.

The oblique stem can be safely reconstructed as *za- (retained in Caucasian Albanian-Udi, Archi and Proto-Nuclear Lezgian).

It is unclear how we should reconstruct the Proto-Lezgian ergative form. In Caucasian Albanian-Udi and many Nuclear Lezgian lects (Kryts, Budukh, Mishlesh Tsakhur, Ixrek Rutul, Koshan Aghul, Gequn Aghul, Fite Aghul, Proper Aghul), the ergative form coincides with the absolutive one (*zo-n ~ *zo). On the contrary, in Archi and the rest of Nuclear Lezgian (Mikik Tsakhur, Gelmets Tsakhur, Mukhad Rutul, Luchek Rutul, Keren Aghul, Lezgi), the ergative form is based on the oblique stem *za- (implying the Proto-Lezgian suffix-free ergative form *za).

The genitive stem is to be reconstructed as *class=iz. The class prefixation has been retained as a living pattern in Archi and as a fossilized prefix in Caucasian Albanian-Udi, but has been lost in Nuclear Lezgian. In some lects, the old genitive form can be additionally modified with the synchronic genitive suffix: Caucasian Albanian-Udi, Tsakhur (cf. also Rutul). In South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh), non-Koshan Aghul, Lezgi, the old genitive form was eliminated, having been levelled after the zV- pattern of the rest of the paradigm. The irregular voiceless fricative in Archi class=is is inexplicable.

Additionally, a specific dative form *class=ez could be theoretically reconstructed, based on Archi class=ez (no traces in other Lezgian languages).

Common Udi *be-s-b-esun. A transitive/causative from be-s-, formed with the light verb -b- 'to do' [Schulze 2005: 569 ff. (3.4.2.2 #22 ff.)]. As accepted in [NCED: 662], be-s- is apparently a contracted form of the infinitive bi-es from the verb bi-esun ~ bi-sun 'to die' q.v. The change i > e is not entirely clear, however.

In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 248] 'to kill' is glossed as ülum siʔi- {уьлум сиъи}, literally 'death' + 'to do', which could be a neologism on the authors' part (note that ülum is an error for ülüm 'death' [Meylanova 1984: 140]).

A second candidate is y=ɨχˤ-, glossed as 'to kill' in [Makhmudova 2001: 107] with the example: "Matsay killed his own chicken" [Makhmudova 2001: 176-177]. But the main meaning of y=ɨχˤ- is 'to strike, hit; to wound', as it is glossed in [Dirr 1912: 163] (with examples) and [Ibragimov 1978: 121]; cf also two additional examples: "The raising sun touched (lit. struck) the mountain top" [Makhmudova 2001: 73], "Beat the drum!" [Makhmudova 2001: 210].

Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 405. Labile verb with polysemy: 'to kill / to die (q.v.)'. It must be noted that in the main section of the dictionary [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 131] this verb is only glossed as 'to die', whereas in [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 248] 'to kill' is translated as y=iqʼ-e h=aʔ- - causative from class=iqʼ-i-r.

There is a tendency in Rutul dialects to restrict =iqʼ- to the meaning 'to die' and ascribe the meaning 'to kill' to the verb y=ɨχˤ- 'to strike, hit', which is derived from ɨχˤ- 'to strike, hit' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 102] with the prefix y=. This process is currently finished in the Luchek dialect. It must be noted that the semantic development 'to hit' > 'to kill' is normal, whereas vice versa is typologically odd.

NCED: 661. Distribution: Preserved in the majority of Lezgian languages. The complete Proto-Lezgian system is reconstructed as *ʔiƛʼe 'to die / to kill' (sg.), *ʔilχʷe 'to die / to kill' (pl.). Further see notes on 'to die'.

LEDb: #230. Distribution: An unstable word. From the distributional point of view, the best candidate is *pɨˤmp / *pʼɨˤmpʼ which denotes 'knee' in Archi, on the one hand, and in South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh), on the other. The meaning shifted to 'angle, corner' in Tabasaran and Lezgi. The Proto-Lezgian reconstruction is not entirely clear phonetically and morphophonologically (see below); external North Caucasian etymology of this root is unknown.

The second candidate is *qʼamqʼ [NCED: 907], which is attested in the meaning 'knee' in some West Lezgian (Rutul) and some East Lezgian lects (Aghul, Tabasaran). Formally, *qʼamqʼ and *pɨˤmp occur with criss-crossing distribution within Nuclear Lezgian. As in some other cases, we suppose that *qʼamqʼ in the meaning 'knee' is an areal introduction, shared by some languages (including Proto-Dargi *qʼʷaqʼʷa ‘knee’ in the adjacent Dargi lects!) after the split of Proto-Nuclear Lezgian.

Various replacements occurred in individual languages.

Udi: *kʼälkʼ- (~ -e-, -r-) [NCED: 720], modified with the fossilized plural suffix. The exact meaning of Proto-Lezgian *kʼälkʼ- cannot be established with certainty. Outside Udi, this root is attested as 'calf of leg' (Lezgi) and 'top of boot' (Aghul). The attested meanings suggest something like 'a part of leg between knee and ankle'.

Caucasian Albanian: *läk [NCED: 755], whose original meaning seems to have been 'leg bone' (shifted to 'bone' q.v. in Archi and into 'foot, leg' q.v. in Tabasaran-Aghul).

Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 177. Irregular verb with the synthetic present form ħuye; the rest of the paradigm is formed analytically as ħa-r xi-. The auxiliary verb xi- in Kibrik & Kodzasov's gloss may be an error for xa- = the verb xa- 'to become' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 62].

The same root in the Kurag subdialect: aHa-y-e ~ y=aʁˤä-y-e [imperf.] / ʡ=aHa-r xa- ~ aHa-r xa- [other forms] 'to know / to get to know' [Magometov 1970: 167, 181, 188, 209 sentence 9]. Magometov's inconsistent transcription of the root fricative is obviously wrong, but the picture is similar to the Keren (Richa) dialect: the synthetic imperfect (presence) and the analytic rest of the paradigm.

The analytic construction in other subdialects:Duldug aHa-r xa-, Tsirkhe aχˤa-r xa- 'to know; to get to know' [Shaumyan 1941: 146].

Initial y= and ʡ= look like desemanticized preverbs.

Common Aghul notes:

A poorly documented verb, both phonetically and paradigmatically. In all the dialects, the proper verbal forms tend to be superseded with the analytic construction aHa-r + the auxiliary verbs 'to become' or 'to go'. The nominal form aHa-r ~ Ha-r represents the old participle or gerund.

In all dialects the equivalent for 'know' is an analytic construction: the participle from the lost verb aʁˤ- 'to know' + the suppletive auxiliary verb 'to become', for which see [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 62].

NCED: 262. Distribution: Retained as the basic root for 'to know' in Caucasian Albanian-Udi, on the one hand, and in most Nuclear Lezgian lects, on the other: West Lezgian (Tsakhur, Rutul), South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh). It must be noted that in Udi, the verb got lost, whereas the root survived in the suffixed adjective as an element of the complex verb (literally 'to be knowing'). Similarly, the old verb tends to be superseded with the analytic construction participle + 'to be(come)' in Nuclear Lezgian. The original meaning of *ʔacʼa- shifted to 'to be able to; to know how' in Archi.

In Aghul and Tabasaran, the old root was lost, superseded with *ʔaχːˤa- [NCED: 565] (as in the case of *ʔacʼa-, the most frequent construction is participle + 'to be(come)'). The exact Proto-Lezgian meaning of *ʔaχːˤa- is not clear, apparently something like 'to get to know, to learn' (cf. its meanings 'teaching, lesson' in Archi, 'to be able to' in Tsakhur).

Suleymanov 2003: 194. According to Suleymanov's examples, Tpig cʼab is applied to both trees and herbs. In [Shaumyan 1941: 153], however, the Tpig word for 'tree leaf' is quoted as paǯ.

Distinct from kʼeǯ 'paper, sheet of paper; letter (message)' [Suleymanov 2003: 125; Shaumyan 1941: 183]. It is interesting, however, that in the only Tpig example found in Shaumyan's work for the meaning 'leaf' the word kʼeǯ is used: "In autumn, leaves fall down from the trees" [Shaumyan 1941: 40].

Common Aghul notes:

A rather unclear situation here, with three candidates for the meaning 'leaf': pʼaˤž, cʼab and kʼeǯ. The word cʼab (cʼaw) has a cognate in Tabasaran (the closest relative of Aghul): cʼab ~ cʼaw 'herb leaf', suggesting that it is possible to reconstruct the opposition 'tree leaf' vs. 'herb leaf' (cʼab) for Proto-Aghul; in such a case the former term would be superseded with the latter one (cʼab) in some dialects, where this typologically rare semantic opposition was eliminated.

It is uncertain how the Proto-Aghul word for 'tree leaf' should be reconstructed. Upon first sight, pʼaˤž is the best candidate ('tree leaf' in Keren and Gequn), but first, it should be noted that kʼeǯ, which everywhere means 'sheet of paper', might be attested in the meaning 'tree leaf' in Koshan and Proper Aghul (if Shaumyan's examples are valid); second, the semantic development 'leaf' > 'sheet (of paper)' is typologically possible, whereas vice versa looks odd. These facts could point to kʼeǯ as the Proto-Aghul term for 'tree leaf'. Both kʼeǯ and pʼaˤž possess external Lezgian cognates with the meaning 'leaf', but kʼeǯ seems a more preferable candidate for the status of this basic Proto-Lezgian term. It should be noted that, as plausibly proposed in [NCED: 298], pʼaˤž acquires the shape pʼaˤǯ in some Aghul dialects under the influence of kʼeǯ. This can additionally confirm that the main Proto-Aghul word for 'tree leaf' was kʼeǯ, whereas pʼaˤž denoted some specific kind of leaves.

The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: kʼaǯ {кIажж} 'leaf of tree' [Genko 2005: 110], as opposed to cʼaw {цIав} 'leaf of herb, plant tops' [Genko 2005: 176] (the dialectal origin of cʼaw is not specified by Genko, but phonetically the form is Northern Tabasaran; Khyuryuk is the most probable variant).

Differently in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut riqʼ-ˈäy 'leaf' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 96] (applied to both trees and herbs). Final -Vy is a rare desemanticized suffix.

In is unclear how the Proto-Lezgi term for 'leaf' should be reconstructed. Note the different treatment of Lezgian *pː in Gyune (b) and Literary Lezgi (pː).

Proto-Lezgian:*ƛʼačʼa 1

NCED: 773. Distribution: An unstable word. Three roots enter into competition with each other in this "criss-crossed" situation. Tentatively, we fill the slot with *ƛʼačʼa [NCED: 773], which has the best distribution among the candidates. The root *ƛʼačʼa means 'leaf' in Archi, on the one hand, and in Tabasaran (specifically 'tree leaf') and apparently Proto-Aghul, on the other. Additionally, this root means 'grain' in Udi (< *'husk'?), 'stem, stalk' in Lezgi, Kryts, 'pod, seedpod' in Tsakhur, 'straw' in Budukh (cf. also Rutul qʼačʼ 'grain' quoted in [NCED], not found in other sources). However, external North Caucasian cognates of Lezgian *ƛʼačʼa are fairly scant and dubious.

The second candidate is *rɨƛʼʷ (reduplicated *ƛʼʷɨrɨƛʼʷ) [NCED: 784]. It is attested as 'leaf' in Rutul and Akhty Lezgi, but has been lost in the rest of languages (in [NCED], cf. also Budukh kʼurukʼ 'bud' is quoted, not found in primary sources). Lezgian *rɨƛʼʷ ~ *ƛʼʷɨrɨƛʼʷ has a weak distribution, and there are no internal reasons to reconstruct this root as the basic Proto-Lezgian term for 'leaf'. Nevertheless, *rɨƛʼʷ ~ *ƛʼʷɨrɨƛʼʷ has very good external North Caucasian cognates that point to the meaning 'leaf'.

The third candidate is *pːaˤša [NCED: 297], attested as 'leaf' in Kryts, Gyune Lezgi, some Aghul dialects (but probably not Proto-Aghul). In Budukh, this stem means 'bud, gemma'. It is unclear how the exact meaning of Proto-Lezgian *pːaˤša should be reconstructed.

In Tsakhur, 'leaf' is expressed by *tʼʷela [NCED: 1006], whose original Proto-Nuclear Lezgian (and Proto-Lezgian?) meaning was no doubt 'twig, rod' (with a further shift to 'rib' in some lects).

Cf. also cʼab, which means specifically 'herb leaf' in Proto-Aghul-Tabasaran (without further etymology?).

Caucasian Albanian: The verb bas-kʼ- is, in fact, attested only in the past tense with the meaning 'to sleep, to fall asleep' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-8] (the same situation as in archaic Vartashen, see above). This is, however, probably not the basic expression for 'to sleep' q.v.

Kibrik et al. 1999: 68, 875; Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 211; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 561. Ablaut paradigm: qːilʸ=ex-a [imperf.] / qːalʸ=ix-u [perf.] / qːalʸ=ix-as [fut.]. Thematic -u- in perf. can hardly serve as an unambiguous indication of labialized -xʷ- in the root. More important evidence for -xʷ- is the negative masdar class 1/2 qːil-dʸ-e-r-xʷu-y, quoted in [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 211]; it is not clear, however, whether this form is reliable. Cf. the positive masdar 1/2 with plain -x- in the same source: qːalʸ-i-r-xɨ-y. It is possible theoretically that -x- has been levelled across the paradigm after forms of class 3, where -pxʷ- > -px- or -oːxʷ- > -oːx- (a regular dissimilative process), but such forms are not numerous, thus it is strange to regard them as the source of levelling.

In [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010], qːilʸ=ex- and qːalʸ=akʼʷ- are quoted with polysemy: 'to lie / to sleep', which frequently occurs in the Tsakhur dialects, but this is not the Mishlesh case, where 'to sleep' is expressed by a specific verb (q.v.).

Not attested. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 561], 'to lie down' is glossed as sowkamiš-x- {совкамишхьез}, which looks like an Azerbaijani loanword: the Azerbaijani verbal root sowka- + the Azerbaijani perfect suffix -miš + the Tsakhur verb ɨx- 'to become', although the actual source of sowka- has not been identified (the possible candidate is Azerbaijani söykä-mäk 'to lean against, rest against', if one assumes a dialectal development in Azerbaijani into **sövkä- 'to lie (down)').

A second candidate is k=utʼ- {кутIун} 'to lie / to be ill' [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 148], with the examples: "He (or it?) is lying on the ground", "I have been ill for many days". In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 561], 'to lie down' is quoted as ow k=utʼ- with the same adverb ow 'down'.

The difference between ow l=uk- and k=utʼ- is unclear; we treat both as synonyms.

Shinaz dialect: in [Ibragimov 1978: 163] the verb k=utʼ- is quoted with the meaning 'to get into bed, lie down into bed'.

It is unclear how the Proto-Rutul verb for 'to lie' should be reconstructed, because the available lexicographic information is very scarce. The widespread verb l=uk- rather represents the Proto-Rutul term for 'to fall, go sprawling', which has latter acquired the meaning 'to lie' in some dialects (cf. the analytic Ixrek construction "down + to fall"). On the contrary, k=utʼ- 'to lie' may be an archaism.

Shaumyan 1941: 141. Polysemy: 'to lie / to lie down'. Shaumyan's example for the stative meaning: "He lay on the bed". It must be noted that in [Suleymanov 2003: 35], a=q=ux-a- is more specifically translated as 'to lie down for a short time (Russian: прилечь)'. Probably no expressions for the generic 'to lie (animated subj.)' in [Suleymanov 2003].

The expressions aqux-a- (Richa Keren, Tpig), qux-a- (Gequn) 'to lie (down)' must apparently be analyzed as prefixed a=q=ux-a-, q=ux-a-, where a= is the spatial preverb ʔa= (ʔ is often dropped in modern Aghul dialects, T. Maisak, p.c.). If so, the verbal root =ux-a- must be regarded as an ablaut variant of =ix-a-, discussed above. Theoretically, however, one can treat (a)quxa- as the analytic construction aqu xa-, where aqu is the regular past participle from the verb aq- '?' and xa- is the common auxiliary verb 'to become'. In this case, Gequn qu(-)xa- is the result of sporadic vowel reduction, on which see [Suleymanov 1993: 42 f.]. Indeed, the Tabasaran (closest relative of Aghul) data can speak in favour of the postulation of the Aghul verb aq- 'to lie' (thus [NCED: 264]), but all Aghul sources (including [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988] and [Suleymanov 2003]) quote (a)qux-a- as one synthetic stem. Because of this, we prefer to follow the prefixal analysis (following [NCED: 279]).

No verb for 'to lie (animated subj.)' can be assuredly reconstructed for Proto-Aghul, but the prefixless verb aχ-a- is safely reconstructible as the Proto-Aghul term for 'to sleep' q.v. (aχ-a- 'to sleep' is retained in Burshag Koshan, Gequn and the Tsirkhe subdialect of Proper Aghul). Maybe the Burshag Koshan and Gequn situation is primary (aχ-a- with polysemy: 'to lie; to sleep'), and aχ-a- was also the basic Proto-Aghul verb for 'to lie (animated subj.)'.

NCED: 273. Distribution: The verbs for 'to lie' and 'to sleep' must be analyzed together with each other. The basic data can be summarized as follows:

'TO LIE / TO SLEEP'

Proto-CA-Udi

Archi

Kryts

Budukh

Tsakhur

Rutul

Aghul

Tabasaran

Lezgi

*ʔ[a]s(ː)ʷɨn- [NCED: 1037]

lie/sleep

sleep

sleep

*ʔaχär- [NCED: 273]

lie, sleep (complex verb)

sleep

sleep

sleep

lie/sleep

sleep

*näwƛʼ [NCED: 619]

sleep (complex verb)

*ʔaqʼel- [NCED: 264]

lie

lie

*ʔeɬːʷɨ- [NCED: 278]

lie

k=utʼ-lie

*ʔaqɨ-(?)[NCED: 264]

lie

*ʔikʷän- (~ -l-) [NCED: 644]

lie

First of all, attention should be paid to two semantic isoglosses, which seriously obscure the picture. The first isogloss is the polysemy 'to lie / to sleep' (usually with the shift 'to lie' > 'to sleep', but not obligatory). It seems ancient, since it affects all of Lezgian (including Caucasian Albanian) as well as some other Dagestanian languages. The second isogloss is the derivation 'to fall' > 'to lie' (> 'to sleep'), which affects the Samur territory (Nuclear Lezgian) and seems relatively recent.

Two main candidates for the Proto-Lezgian meanings 'to lie' and 'to sleep' are *ʔ[a]s(ː)ʷɨn- and *ʔaχär-. Before discussing them in details, some clearly innovative formations should be ruled out.

In the Caucasian Albanian-Udi branch, 'to sleep' can be expressed analytically as 'to be in sleeping', in conjunction with the Common Proto-Lezgian noun *näwƛʼ 'dream, sleeping' [NCED: 619]. This formation competes with the verb bas-kʼ-esun (< *ʔ[a]s(ː)ʷɨn-) 'to lie / to sleep' in both Caucasian Albanian and modern Udi, but apparently such an analytical construction is a relatively early innovation of the Caucasian Albanian-Udi branch.

In South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh), the meaning 'to lie' originates from 'to fall, go sprawling' (cf. synchronic polysemy in Budukh). The original meaning of *ʔaqʼel- [NCED: 264] was something like 'to dangle, shake', as follows from the same semantics in Aghul-Tabasaran, on the one hand, and in some other North Caucasian groups, on the other.

In Tsakhur, 'to lie (animated subj.)' is expressed by *ʔeɬːʷɨ- [NCED: 278], whose original labile meaning was 'to put / to lie (inanimate subj.)', as follows from its Lezgian cognates. Additionally, this root can acquire the polysemy 'to lie / to sleep' in some Tsakhur dialects.

In Rutul, the original verb for 'to lie' seems to be k=utʼ-, without further etymology. This stem tends to be superseded with the root *ʔikʷän- (~ -l-) [NCED: 644] 'to fall, go sprawling' in modern Rutul dialects.

In Aghul dialects, the most complicated situation is observed with four or five verbs for 'to lie', three of which are also attested in the meaning 'to sleep'. It seems that the most economic scenario is to reconstruct *ʔaχär- with Proto-Aghul polysemy 'to lie / to sleep'. Other verbs are recent dialectal introductions: *ʔarɬɨ- [NCED: 602] 'to fall' > 'to lie', 'to sleep'; *ʔarkɨr- / *ʔerkɨr- [NCED: 266] 'to fall down' > 'to lie', 'to sleep'; *ʔeɬːʷɨ- [NCED: 278] > 'to lie'.

In Tabasaran, 'to lie' is expressed with *ʔaqɨ- [NCED: 264], whose original meaning could be 'to fall' vel sim., this root looks rather problematic etymologically: pace [NCED], Archi =ˈaχa- 'to lie' can be satisfactorily etymologized as *ʔaχär-, whereas Aghul aqu xa- 'to lie' should rather be analyzed as prefixed a=q=ux-a-.

In Lezgi, *ʔikʷän- (~ -l-) [NCED: 644] 'to fall, go sprawling' shifted to the meaning 'to lie' (the same development as in Rutul).

Finally, we can return to *ʔ[a]s(ː)ʷɨn- [NCED: 1037] and *ʔaχär- [NCED: 273]. The first one, *ʔ[a]s(ː)ʷɨn-, denotes both 'to lie' and 'to sleep' in Caucasian Albanian and Udi. It also survived in two Nuclear Lezgian languages (Tsakhur, Lezgi), where it means 'to sleep'.

The second one, *ʔaχär-, means 'to lie' in Archi (with the synchronic derivative 'to sleep'), but 'to sleep' in the bulk of Nuclear Lezgian.

In such a mirror situation, external North Caucasian comparison should be involved. The external data point to the primary meaning 'to sleep' or 'to dream' for Lezgian *ʔ[a]s(ː)ʷɨn-, thus we postulate this root as the Proto-Lezgian term for 'to sleep'. This stem acquired the polysemy 'to lie / to sleep' in the Caucasian Albanian-Udi branch (due to the common areal isogloss), but survived as 'to sleep' in some West Lezgian (Tsakhur) and East Lezgian (Lezgi) languages.

On the contrary, Lezgian *ʔaχär- originates from the Proto-North Caucasian root with the meaning 'to fall'. Thus, we postulate *ʔaχär- as the Proto-Lezgian root for 'to lie', assuming the shift 'to fall' > 'to lie' in Proto-Lezgian. It was lost as a verb in the Udi branch after the verb 'to sleep' acquired the polysemy 'to sleep / to lie'. In most Nuclear Lezgian lects, *ʔaχär- primarily meant both 'to sleep / to lie' (the isogloss of polysemy), but currently 'to lie' is normally expressed by various verbs for 'to fall' (a more recent semantic isogloss). Additional evidence for the original meaning 'to lie' is the Vartashen Udi adjective b=arχi 'transversal, horizontal' (< *'lying') [Gukasyan 1974: 71] with the fossilized class prefix. Such a scenario is not straightforward, but seems the most economic one.

The same root in the Khudig subdialect: H=ark-i- 'to lie' [Shaumyan 1941: 133 f., 149] ("He [the third son of the king] used to lie in ashes") and q=ark-i- 'to lie; to lie down' [Shaumyan 1941: 141] ("He lay on the bed").

Another term for 'liver' may be zizam, which is translated as 'liver, spleen' in [Fähnrich 1999: 35] and only as 'liver' in [Dzheiranishvili 1971: 204, 247] (there is no term for 'spleen' in [Dzheiranishvili 1971]). However, the latter glossing seems erroneous, because zizam is consistently glossed only as 'spleen' in other sources [Gukasyan 1974: 118; Mobili 2010: 298; Schiefner 1863: 93; Starchevskiy 1891: 506], and, furthermore, this word originates from the Proto-Lezgian term for 'spleen'.

A third hypothetical candidate for 'liver' is ǯigär, which is glossed in [Schulze 2001: 272] as 'liver; courage', although this is unattested in the direct anatomic meaning in [Bezhanov & Bezhanov 1902]. The Udi word was borrowed from Azerbaijani *ǯigär (> Modern ǯiyär) 'liver, lung; courage', ultimately from Persian ǯigar 'liver; courage'. It is interesting that ǯigär {джигаьр} is quoted in [Gukasyan 1974: 245] as a synonym for a word tiχˤ {тиъх}, although the entry tiχˤ is missing from [Gukasyan 1974]. Additionally, in [Dabakov 2008: 359] there is a word tiχˤmiχ {тиъхмиъх} 'entrails, pluck' (the same term is quoted as tɨχmɨχ 'entrails, pluck' in [Mobili 2010: 266]). An unclear situation.

Common Udi notes:

No candidates except for *maˤin papaš ~ pušˤpuš, literally 'black entrails'. Nidzh papaš and Vartashen pušˤpuš 'entrails' are obviously related, but details are obscure; this looks like a reduplicated formation or a loanwords from an unknown source.

NCED: 586. Distribution: Retained as the basic term for 'liver' in all Nuclear Lezgian languages (except for Alyk Kryts), therefore can be safely reconstructed as 'liver' in Proto-Nuclear Lezgian. External comparison confirms that *läƛʼ was the Proto-Lezgian term for 'liver' as well.